JfX  s* 


<?  w '  i  r: 


ffii^cteli 


jU 


no,. 


i  : 


</  7 


^ 


/ 


Trade  Organizations 


IN    POLITICS 


Progress  and  Robbery 


AN  ANSWER  TO  HENRY  GEORGE. 


J.  BLEECKER  MILLER. 


NEW    YORK: 
THE  BAKER  &  TAYLOR  CO. 

1887. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1887,  by 

J.  Bleeckbr  Miller, 

in  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C. 


The    McWii.liams   Printing  Company, 
81  and  83  Elm  Street,  New  York. 


TO 


M.   DUANE  JONES, 

THIS  BOOK   IS   RESPECTFULLY  DEDICATED. 


M130139 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

Trade  Organizations  in  Public  Affairs,  -         i 
Federalism  and  the  Social  Contract  Theory,     6i 

Universal  Suffrage  in  Cities,        -       -       -  118 

Argument  on  the  Aldermanic  Bill,          -  -    135 
Progress  and  Robbery: 

I.  A  Property  Owner's  Answer,       -       -  -    153 

II.  A  Business  Man's  Answer,       -  175 

III.  A  Workingman's  Answer,      -  185 

Progress  and  Justice,        -  201 


INTRODUCTION. 


Considering  the  attention  now  given  to  the  participa- 
tion of  trade  organizations  in  public  affairs,  it  occurred  to 
me  that  the  following  papers,  containing  some  thoughts 
on  this  subject,  might  be  of  general  interest.  The  first 
essay,  on  "  Trade  Organizations  in  Public  Affairs,"  was 
read  before  the  Academy  of  Political  Science  in  1884,  and 
treats  of  the  subject  from  a  historical  point  of  view. 
The  second,  on  "  Federalism  and  the  Social  Contract 
Theory,''  was  read  before  the  German  Gesellig-Wissen- 
schaftlicher  Verein,  of  this  city,  in  1883,  and  is  a  review  of 
the  opposing  theories.  The  third  paper,  on  "  Universal 
Suffrage  in  Cities,"  is  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  applica- 
tion of  the  theory  advocated  in  the  first  essay  to  the 
election  of  our  legislators,  and  was  read  before  the  Young 
Men's  Democratic  Club  m  1885.  The  fourth  is  a  speech 
in  favor  of  the  application  of  the  same  principle  to  the 
election  of  Aldermen,  and  was  delivered  at  a  hearing  on 
the  Aldermanic  bill  before  Governor  Hill  in  the  same 
year.  Of  the  next  three  papers,  which  were  in- 
tended to  counteract  the  false  start  of  the  trade 
organizations  made  last  Fall,  two  are  speeches  de- 
livered during  that  campaign  against  the  heresies  of 
Henry  George,  and  the  other  was  written  since  then  on 
the  same  subject.  The  last  article,  entitled  "  Progress 
and  Justice,"  is  an  attempt  to  show  that  the  recent  com- 
munistic campaign  does  not  affect  the  correctness  of  the 


VIII 

theories  advocated  by  me  in  1883,  and  that  only  by  per- 
sistently following  out  those  ideas  on  which  our  federal 
government  was  formed  can  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the 
great  problems  of  the  day  be  attained.  1  wish  here  to 
acknowledge  my  indebtedness  to  the  writings  of  Stahl, 
Mario,  Von  Mohl  and  the  Professorial  Socialists,  Bren- 
tano,  Schmoller,  Gierke  and  others,  although  their  books 
are  written  with  but  little  reference  to  American  affairs; 
and  among  American  writers,  I  have  obtained  valuable 
suggestions  from  Walker,  Gladden,  Cherouny  and  Pro- 
fessor Adams  of  Cornell  University. 

The  papers,  with  the  exception  of  the  second  essay, 
have  been  left  in  their  original  form.  They  consequently 
contain  some  repetition,  but  this  also  makes  each  one  to 
a  certain  extent  complete  in  itself,  which  may  not  be 
disagreeable  to  readers  in  this  busy  city  of  New  York. 
They  are  all  attempts  to  develop  the  same  idea,  namely, 
that  a  city  should  be  a  political  unit  in  its  relations  to  the 
State,  and  that  its  inhabitants  should  be  allowed  to 
express  their  political  convictions,  unhampered  by  a 
division  into  geographical  election  districts,  by  which 
means  the  trade,  business  and  professional  organizations 
will  gradually  and  peaceably  come  to  take  their  due  part 
in  our  public  affairs,  thereby  striking  at  the  root  of  our 
main  political  and  economical  evils.  In  my  opinion,  this 
change  in  our  government  is  the  one  most  needed,  and 
must  precede  all  successful  attempts  to  permanently 
improve  our  civil  service,  our  methods  of  transporta- 
tion, our  liquor  license  laws,  our  tenement  house  system, 
and  all  the  most  urgently  demanded  reforms  of  the  day. 


Trade  Organizations  in  Public  Affairs. 

i. 

SELF-GOVERNMENT    AND    REPRESENTATION  OF  GROUPS  OF 
MEN   WITH   COMMON   MATERIAL   INTERESTS. 

MEN,  having  certain  wishes  in  common,  naturally 
unite  in  groups  in  order  to  carry  out  those  wishes, 
because  they  can  by  their  united  energy  supply  many  of 
their  wants  more  easily  than  by  their  individual  efforts. 

The  strongest  want  among  all  men  is  for  the  means 
required  for  their  physical  existence ;  after  these  have 
been  supplied,  so  far  as  absolutely  necessary,  and  their 
protection  from  the  attacks  of  others  secured,  they  desire 
to  satisfy  other  wishes,  such  as  that  to  exercise  their  sym- 
pathy, to  worship  the  deity,  to  develop  their  fancy,  to 
increase  their  knowledge,  etc. 

With  the  object  of  better  carrying  out  these  various 
wishes,  we  see  that  men  have  united  from  the  earliest 
times,  in  various  groups,  beginning  with  associations  of 
hunters  to  capture  large  quantities  of  game,  or  to  drive 
others  from  their  hunting  grounds;  then  uniting  to  exer- 
cise their  sympathy  by  punishing  some  individual,  for 
wronging  another,  who  is  too  weak  to  retaliate ;  then 
meeting  together  to  propitiate  the  deity  and  supporting 
a  common  intercessor  or  priest. 

But  with  the  beginning  of  agricultural  life,  the  wants 
of  man's  physical  body  to  be  supplied  by  common  efforts 


increase  greatly ;  wells  must  be  dug,  land  must  be  cleared 
and  drained,  heavy  weights  lifted.  The  necessity  for  a 
ready  defence  against  outsiders  and  against  evil-disposed 
neighbors  increases;  consequently,  the  union  becomes 
closer  and  common  action  more  frequent.  To  provide 
for  these  most  important  matters,  some  organization  must 
be  provided,  with  means  at  its  disposal  to  meet  sudden 
emergencies,  and  to  provide  so  far  as  possible  for  future 
wants ;  these  means  must  be  contributed  by  the  men  wha 
have  possessions,  and  they  naturally  select  the  persons 
who  shall  have  charge  of  these  common  matters,  although 
frequent  meetings  are  customary  on  important  questions. 
Thus  begins  self-government.  Thereby,  gradually,  the 
sympathy  of  members  for  each  other  increases,  and  help 
for  the  unfortunate  and  revenge  for  the  injured  becomes 
a  more  general  practice.  With  a  more  regular  mode  of 
life,  and  less  uncertainty  for  the  future,  grows  the  habit 
of  looking  ahead,  and  the  benefits  of  superior  knowledge 
and  thought  become  more  apparent;  hence  religion  and 
common  education  receive  more  attention.  Then  neigh- 
boring groups  of  agriculturists  find  that  they  have  wants 
in  common ;  roads  must  be  built,  streams  bridged,  mar- 
kets held  for  the  mutually  beneficial  exchange  of  their 
commodities,  and  meetings  to  consider  and  provide  for 
these  common  interests  must  be  had  through  representa- 
tives, since  all  cannot  conveniently  attend. 

The  modern  materialistic  school  would  have  us  believe 
that  it  is  only  these  physical  necessities  and  dangers 
which  are  the  mainsprings  of  human  action  ;  but  men 
have  also  other  wants. 

Thus  it  becomes  possible  for  groups  of  men  with  the 
same  material  interests,  living  some  distance  apart,  to  act 
in  common  for  their  furtherance  and  protection.  The 
duties  and  rights  of  these  representatives  of  common 
material   interests  of    different   neighborhoods    increase 


with  the  number  of  common  wants,  caused  by  the  pro- 
gress of  civilization,  and  with  the  danger  from  attacks  by 
common  foes.  To  provide  for  these,  means  must  be  fur- 
nished by  well-to-do  persons,  in  both  communities,  and 
permanent  officials  appointed  to  take  charge  of  them. 
Thus  representative  government  begins. 

In  time,  sympathy  spreads  and  increases,  until  misfor- 
tune or  wrong  suffered  by  men  in  neighboring  villages 
leads  to  united  action.  Subsequently,  by  intercourse, 
especially  with  outsiders,  the  wits  of  the  people  are 
sharpened,  and  the  advantages  to  be  acquired  by  higher 
education  and  better  religious  services  become  apparent, 
and  larger  unions  are  formed  for  raising  the  necessary 
means  to  support  their  teachers  and  pastors,  who  are 
often  induced  to  come  from  foreign  lands. 

The  supervision  of  these  other  common  wants  is  gen- 
erally left  to  the  same  persons  who  were  appointed  pri- 
marily only  to  further  the  common  material  interests, 
since  by  the  similar  occupation,  in  the  same  geographical 
division,  a  similar  mode  of  life  and  a  similarity  ot  ideas 
on  most  important  subjects  is  formed,  although,  in  excep- 
tional cases,  special  unions  are  formed  to  gratify  some 
other  peculiarly  strong  desire,  which  intersects  the 
various  unions  for  material  interests. 

If  men  have,  in  common,  desires  arising  from  their  com- 
mon method  of  gaining  a  livelihood,  their  sense  of  self- 
preservation  will  not  let  them  rest,  until  they  have  united 
to  secure  their  fulfilment  and  preservation,  and  thus  ever 
larger  circles,  or  groups  of  groups,  may  be  formed,  each 
intended,  however,  to  embrace  a  smaller  number  of  vital 
interests. 

Thus,  one  person  generally  belonged  to  two  or  more 
groups  of  individuals,  each  with  certain  common  interests, 
whose  sphere  of  action  decreased  as  the  number  of  its 
component  members  or  groups  increased.     The  progress 


and  prosperity  of  mankind  has  consisted  in  the  increase  of 
the  number  of  these  groups,  at  the  same  rate  that  common 
interests  increased,  and  in  entrusting  each  with  the  duty 
of  furthering  the  interests  common  to  that  group,  and  no 
others. 

How  urgent  and  numerous  the  interests  of  each  group 
may  be,  and  how  numerous  and  powerful  consequently 
must  be  the  officials  who  watch  over  these  interests, 
depends  upon  circumstances.  A  modern  state  is,  or  ought 
to  be,  such  a  group  of  groups  of  men,  whose  common 
material  interests  are  so  strong  that  they  are  willing  to 
defend  those  interests  in  common,  and  whose  sympathy  is 
so  strong  that  they  are  willing  to  submit  their  mutual 
differences  to  peaceful  decision — arbitration. 

But  men  are  only  too  apt  to  depart  from  this  ideal  Ger- 
manic form  of  self  and  representative  government,  misled, 
especially,  by  theories  derived  from  other,  older,  races ; 
one  group  invades  the  province  of  another,  and  undertakes 
to  fulfill  its  duties,  or  destroy  its  existence ;  men  are  slow 
to  recognize  the  growth  of  new  circles  with  common 
material  interests,  caused  by  a  change  in  the  manner  of 
earning  a  livelihood,  and  cling  to  old  associations  or  try 
to  adopt  their  forms  to  satisfy  new  and  different  wants ; 
men  fail  to  see  that  by  the  improvement  of  the  means  of 
communication,  etc.,  the  existence  of  new  and  larger 
circles  becomes  possible,  and  continue  instead  to  plod 
along  in  the  individualistic  struggle  and  thus  lose  the 
saving  of  energy  which  united  action  would  cause.  Or 
men,  misled  again  by  the  examples  of  others,  form  unions 
containing  a  larger  number  of  individuals,  than  actually 
have  interests  or  sympathies,  in  common,  or  undertake  to 
perform,  in  common,  work  which  really  belongs  to  smaller 
associations. 

Among  the  principal  wants  which  such  a  state,  or  a 
circle  of  men  with  common  material  interests,  united  with 


5 

other  circles  lor  the  furtherance  of  interests  common  to 
all,  seek  to  satisfy  are  the  following :  They  seek  to  have 
the  share  which  each  group  must  contribute  to  the  com- 
mon fund  as  small  as  possible,  and  collected  in  a  manner 
as  little  burdensome  as  possible,  i.  e.,  they  have  an  interest 
in  tax  legislation.  They  strive  to  protect  themselves  from 
the  unfair  acts  of  some  other  group  of  the  same  state  with 
whom  they  come  most  frequently  in  contact,  and  by  which 
they  suffer  more  than  the  members  of  any  other  group, 
i.  e.,  they  have  an  interest  in  internal  legislation  and  litiga- 
tion. They  endeavor  to  protect  themselves  against  the 
unfair  acts  of  men  belonging  to  some  other  state,  by  which 
they  suffer  more  than  the  other  groups  of  their  state  ;  {.  e., 
they  have  an  interest  in  the  relations  of  the  state  with 
foreign  governments.  These  wants,  common  wants  of 
various  circles,  require  that  they  should  be  represented  in 
the  government  of  the  State. 

The  men  belonging  to  the  same  circle  have  also  an  in- 
terest in  satisfying  all  their  common  wants  by  united 
efforts ;  in  stopping  dishonest  work,  whereby  the  produce 
of  all  is  brought  into  disrepute;  in  exercising  the  greater 
sympathy,  which  they  in  time  get  to  feel  for  members  of 
the  same  group,  by  revenging  their  injuries  and  allaying 
their  sufferings.  These  wants  require  that  each  group 
should  retain  a  certain  amount  of  self-government. 

Whenever  men  cannot  satisfy  their  wants  they  are  dis- 
satisfied, and  whenever  groups  of  men  have  such  unsatis- 
fied wishes,  the  whole  group  is  affected  by  this  dissatis- 
faction. One  group  of  men  often  asserts  and  enforces  its 
wishes  over  other  groups,  and  undertakes  or  pretends  to 
undertake,  to  interpret  and  fulfill  the  wishes  of  the  mem- 
bers of  these  groups ;  but  men,  with  the  best  intentions, 
cannot  understand  other  people's  wishes  so  well  as  they 
do  themselves,  nor  fulfill  them  as  exactly.  If  this  attempt 
is  persevered  in  too  long  and  too  recklessly,  the  groups 


whose  wishes  are  disregarded  will  at  last  undertake  to 
assert  them,  without  recourse  to  regular  means  provided 
by  government ;  men  begin  to  object  to  supporting  the 
old  means  provided  by  law  for  the  alleged  realizing  of 
these  wants ;  complaints  of  their  expense  and  their  insuf- 
ficiency become  frequent,  and  if  these  do  not  receive 
attention,  and  the  wishes  of  the  new  groups  are  not  sup- 
plied, revolution  follows. 

The  wishes  which  groups  of  men  gaining  a  livelihood 
by  the  same  means  have  in  common,  exceed  in  intensity 
and  number  those  which  the  people  as  a  whole  have  in 
common,  i.  e.,  the  so-called  natural  or  original  rights  of 
life,  limb,  etc.  When  one  group  has  usurped  an  undue 
amount  of  authority  over  another  group,  the  appeal  to 
these  original  rights  is  made,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  these 
oppressions  by  the  oppressed  group,  but  so  soon  as  these 
wrongs  are  remedied  and  the  group  is  allowed  to  regulate 
its  own  affairs,  it  begins  anew  the  construction  of  regula- 
tions for  itself  contrary  to  or  supplementary  of  the  system 
of  so-called  original  rights,  under  whose  banner  they  have 
just  been  fighting. 

No  populous  nation  with  different  material  interests  is 
ever  content  to  live  together,  under  legislation  concerning 
only  the  few  general  interests  common  to  all ;  man's  self- 
interest  is  too  strong. 


II. 

THE     GERMANIC     TOWN:     AN    ASSOCIATION     OF     FARMERS 
WITH   COMMON   INTERESTS. 

WE  are  all  familiar  with  the  Germanic  group  of  men, 
seeking  a  livelihood  by  agriculture  in  a  given  neigh- 
borhood, under  the  same  conditions  of  soil  and  climate, 
and  united  with  other  similar  communities,  in  more  or  less 
intimate  unions,  according  to  the  extent  of  their  common 
interests,  and  yielding  to  the  common  will  of  the  unions 
in  all  matters  affecting  those  common  interests,  and  exer- 
cising themselves  all  other  power  over  themselves ;  we 
call  this  the  township  system,  with  its  principle  of  self- 
government  and  representation. 

As  to  the  admirable  working  of  this  system,  all  are 
agreed :  The  common  interests  are  understood  and  ably 
defended  in  the  body  of  representatives,  against  those  of 
other  towns  or  groups  of  towns ;  justice  is  administered 
by  neighbors  in  a  fair,  considerate  manner ;  the  poor  are 
provided  for,  although  a  proper  pride  urges  them  not  to 
become  a  burden  on  their  neighbors ;  the  bad  cultivation 
of  the  ground  is  condemned  by  public  opinion  and  some- 
times by  local  ordinances. 

Nowhere  has  the  natural  formation  of  Germanic  agri- 
cultural communities  been  more  favored  by  circumstances 
than  in  New  England ;  in  fact,  it  seems  as  though  at  that 
time  no  model  existed  for  them  in  Europe.  In  England, 
the  Anglo-Saxon  "tuns"  had  become  manors,  as  is  shown 
in  Seebohm's  recent  work  on  the  "  English  Village  Com- 
munity ;"  if  anywhere,  it  must  have  been  in  the  old  Frisian 


"  mark,"  in  the  north  of  Holland,  that  the  Puritans  found 
the  prototypes  for  their  communities. 

No  better  description  of  a  model  Germanic  association, 
enjoying  the  full  right  of  self-government  and  representa- 
tion has  been  given  than  that  of  the  New  England  town- 
ship, by  De  Tocqueville  in  his  "  Democracy  in  America:  " 
"  Its  average  population  is  from  two  to  three  thousand  ; 
so  that,  on  the  one  hand,  the  interests  of  the  inhabitants 
are  not  likely  to  conflict,  and,  on  the  other,  men  capable 
of  conducting  its  affairs  are  always  to  be  found  among  its 
citizens  "  (page  63). 

"  The  New  Englander  is  attached  to  his  township 
.  .  because  it  constitutes  a  strong  and  free  social 
body  of  which  he  is  a  member,  and  whose  government 
claims  and  deserves  the  exercise  of  his  sagacity "  (page 
68).  "  The  township  and  the  county  are  therefore  bound 
to  take  care  of  their  special  interests  "  (page  83). 

I  will  only  further  cite  the  description  in  Palfrey's 
"History  of  New  England,"  Vol.  II.,  p.  12:  "To  the 
utmost  extent  consistent  with  the  common  action  and  the 
common  welfare  of  the  aggregate  of  towns  that  make  the 
State,  the  towns  severally  are  empowered  to  take  care  of 
those  interests  of  theirs  which  they  respectively  can  best 
understand,  and  can  most  efficiently  and  most  economi- 
cally provide  lor ;  and  these  are  identical  with  the  inter- 
ests which  most  directly  concern  the  public  security,  com- 
fort and  morals." 

That  these  beauties  of  the  township  government  are 
still  acknowledged  is  shown  by  Governor  Seymour's 
article,  on  the  "  Government  of  the  United  States,"  in  the 
"  North  American  Review,"  of  1878,  p.  367 :  "  Upon  such 
questions,  so  far  as  they  particularly  concern  them,  the 
people  of  the  towns  are  more  intelligent  and  more  inter- 
ested than  those  outside  of  their  limits  can  be.  The 
theory  of  self-government  is  not  founded  upon  the  idea 


that  the  people  are  necessarily  virtuous  and  intelligent,, 
but  it  attempts  to  distribute  each  particular  power  to 
those  who  have  the  greatest  interest  in  its  wise  and 
faithful  exercise." 

But  these  New  England  towns  were  not  mere  aggre- 
gates of  a  certain  number  of  individuals — as  was  proper 
in  an  agricultural  community ;  the  town  meetings  were 
attended  only  by  freeholders  or  by  men  with  some  inter- 
est in  land,  within  the  township.  Thus  Palfrey  in  his 
second  volume,  page  14,  says :  "  The  land,  when  its  bounds 
had  been  set  out  by  a  Committee  of  the  Court,  was  held 
at  first  by  the  company  as  proprietors  in  common.  To 
transact  the  joint  business  ....  the  organization  of 
a  local  authority  was  immediately  needed." 

This  was  thoroughly  in  accord  with  the  system  of  the 
old  Germanic  "mark,''  in  which  rights  and  duties  might 
be  said  to  be  attached  to  the  lots  of  land,  and  exercised 
only  by  the  owners  of  the  land.  (Gierke,  Vol.  II.,  p.  92). 
The  mark  and  town  were  both  associations  of  agricult- 
urists, united  to  further  their  common  interests. 


III. 

SELF-GOVERNMENT     AND    REPRESENTATION    OF    FARMERS, 

WITH   COMMON   INTERESTS   SECURED   BY 

THE   CONSTITUTION. 

THIS  necessity  for  representation  and  self-government 
for  groups  of  men  with  similar  material  interests  was 
thoroughly  understood  and  appreciated  by  the  Fathers 
who  formed  our  Constitution.  The  Revolution  had  heen 
brought  about  by  one  group  of  men  attempting  to  deny 
the  right  of  the  expression  of  their  wishes  by  other 
groups  of  men,  engaged  in  seeking  a  livelihood  by  com- 
mon means,  as  to  the  manner  and  extent  of  their  contribu- 


io 

tions  toward  the  expenses  of  attaining  certain  ends,  which 
the  latter  had  greatly  desired.  "  Taxation  without  repre- 
sentation is  tyranny,"  was  the  cry,  and  when  that  danger 
to  their  common  material  interests  had  united  and  roused 
the  men  of  America  to  arms,  and  nerved  them  through  a 
seven  years'  war,  the  Fathers  took  good  care  that  this 
principle  should  be  recognized  in  our  government. 

The  speeches  on  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  in  the 
different  States  are  full  of  declarations  that  men  united 
according  to  their  means  of  gaining  a  livelihood,  i.  e., 
according  to  their  interests,  should  be  represented  in 
government,  and  that  this  new  government  should  be 
restricted  to  those  common  interests ;  these  principles 
were  nowhere  denied  ;  this  is  shown  by  the  following 
three  citations,  whose  number  might  be  greatly  increased: 

In  the  New  York  Convention,  on  June  23,  1778,  Chan- 
cellor Livingston  said :  "  As  to  the  idea  of  representing 
the  feelings  of  the  people,  1  do  not  entirely  understand  it, 
unless  by  their  feelings  are  meant  their  interests.  They 
appear  to  me  to  be  the  same  thing.  But,  if  they  have 
feelings  which  do  not  rise  out  of  their  interests,  I  think 
they  ought  not  to  be  represented."     (Elliot,  II.,  p.  275.) 

In  the  Virginia  Convention,  Mr.  Corbin  said :  "  What 
is  the  criterion  of  representation?  Do  the  people  wish 
land  only  to  be  represented  ?  They  have  their  wish ;  for 
the  qualifications  which  the  laws  of  the  States  require 
to  entitle  a  man  to  vote  for  a  State  representative,  are  the 
qualifications  required  by  this  plan  to  vote  for  a  repre- 
sentative to  Congress;  and  in  this  State,  and  in  most  of 
the  others,  the  possession  of  a  freehold  is  necessary  to 
entitle  a  man  to  the  privilege  of  a  vote.  (Elliot,  III.,  p. 
no.) 

Mr.  Nicholas  spoke  to  the  same  effect :  M  We  find  there 
is  a  decided  majority  [ot  electors]  attached  to  the  landed 
interest;  consequently,  the  landed  interest  must  prevail 


II 


in  the  choice.  Should  the  State  be  divided  into  districts, 
in  no  one  can  the  mercantile  interest  by  any  means  have 
an  equal  weight  in  the  elections ;  therefore,  the  former 
will  be  more  fully  represented  in  Congress.''  (Elliot,  III., 
p.  9.) 

The  Federalist  also  fully  recognizes  the  necessity  of 
representing  the  various  interests  of  the  citizens,  as  is 
shown,  for  example,  by  the  two  following  extracts : 

Letter  No.  55  :  "  Taking  each  State  by  itself  its  laws  are 
the  same,  and  its  interests  but  little  diversified.  A  few 
men,  therefore,  will  possess  all  the  knowledge  requisite 
for  a  proper  representation  of  them.  Were  the  interests 
and  affairs  of  each  individual  State  perfectly  simple  and 
uniform,  a  knowledge  of  them  in  one  part  would  involve 
a  knowledge  of  them  in  every  other,  and  the  whole  State 
might  be  completely  represented  by  a  single  member 
taken  from  any  part  of  it.  .  .  .  At  present,  some  of 
the  States  are  little  more  than  a  society  of  husbandmen. 
Few  of  them  have  made  much  progress  in  those  branches 
of  industry  which  give  a  variety  and  complexity  to  the 
affairs  of  a  nation.  ...  A  representative  for  every 
30,000  inhabitants  will  render  the  latter  both  a  safe  and  a 
competent  guardian  of  the  interests  which  will  be  con- 
fided to  it." 

Letter  No.  58 :  "A  landed  interest,  a  manufacturing 
interest,  a  mercantile  interest,  a  moneyed  interest,  with 
many  lesser  interests,  grow  up  of  necessity  in  civilized 
nations.  .  .  .  The  regulation  of  these  various  and 
interfering  interests  forms  the  principal  task  of  modern 
legislation.'' 

There  is  nothing  surprising  in  the  fact  that  the  agri- 
cultural interest  was  uppermost  in  the  minds  of  the 
founders  of  the  Republic,  and  generally  referred  to,  to 
the  exclusion  of  other  interests.  For  the  census  returns 
show  that  in  1790  only  three  per  cent,  of  the  population 
lived  in  cities  with  more  than  8,000  inhabitants. 


12 


The  first  constitutions  of  almost  all  the  States  required,, 
as  stated  in  the  extract  of  the  speech  of  Mr.  Corbin 
above  quoted,  an  interest  in  real  estate  as  a  qualification 
for  voters.  The  first  constitution  of  any  size,  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  of  1776,  of  Virginia — the  State  of  Henry  and 
Jefferson  —  says  in  §6:  "All  men  having  sufficient  evi- 
dence of  permanent  common  interest  with,  and  attach- 
ment to  the  community,  have  the  right  of  suffrage ;"  and 
in  that  State  the  property  qualification  was  not  removed 
until  1850. 

The  Massachusetts  constitution  of  1780  allowed  only 
male  inhabitants,  who  were  freeholders,  to  vote ;  that  of 
South  Carolina,  adopted  1790,  required  ownership  of  free- 
hold ;  that  of  Georgia,  of  1777,  required  of  the  voter  a 
possession  of  £10,  or  to  belong  to  a  mechanic  trade.  The 
constitution  of  New  York,  of  1777,  which  served  generally 
as  the  model  for  subsequent  constitutions,  and  which 
might  be  called  the  first  of  constitutions,  as  distinguished 
from  the  previous  Bills  of  Rights,  or  Declarations  of 
General  Principles,  required  that  voters  for  the  Assembly 
must  have  freeholds  of  £20,  or  have  rented  a  tenement  in 
the  county  of  the  yearly  value  of  40  shillings;  but  for 
Senators  only  freeholders  possessed  of  franchise  of  over 
£100  might  vote.  The  fact  that  this  system  had  brought 
to  the  front  the  noblest  men  the  world  has  ever  seen, 
justified  their  appreciation  of  it.  This  property  qualifica- 
tion was  not  entirely  removed  till  1846.  Representatives 
were,  moreover,  required  to  be  landowners,  long  after 
the  necessity  of  that  qualification  was  removed  for  voters. 

Thus,  Madison  could  say :  "  If  those  ten  men,  who 
were  to  be  chosen,  be  elected  by  landed  men,  and  have 
land  themselves,  can  the  electors  have  anything  to  appre- 
hend?" (Elliot,  III.,  p.  332.)  And  Governor  Randolph: 
"  The  representatives  are  chosen  by  and  from  among  the 
people      They  will  have  a  fellow-feeling  for  the  farmers 


and  planters.  .  .  .  What  laws  can  they  make  that 
will  not  operate  on  themselves  and  friends,  as  well  as  on 
the  rest  of  the  people?"     (Elliot,  III.,  pp.  470  and  120.) 

While  these  extracts  show  how  highly  the  right  of 
representation  was'  valued  by  these  agricultural  com- 
munities, and  how  the  necessity  for  the  representation  of 
their  most  vital  interests  was  understood,  the  self-govern- 
ment in  all  matters  which  did  not  concern  all  the  people 
was  most  jealously  guarded.  Many  of  the  speakers  in 
the  Constitutional  Conventions  denied  that  any  such  com- 
mon interest  existed ;  this  almost  led  to  the  rejection  of 
the  United  States  Constitution.  Luther  Martin,  in  his  very 
elaborate  and  powerful  speech  before  the  Legislature  of 
Maryland,  in  1787,  declared:  "We  considered  the  system 
proposed  (the  United  States  Constitution)  to  be  the  most 
•complete,  most  abject  system  of  slavery  that  the  wit  of  man 
ever  devised  under  the  pretense  of  forming  a  government 
for  free  states."  In  fact,  the  Constitution  would  very 
possibly  not  have  been  adopted,  if  it  had  not  been  gener- 
ally understood  that  the  amendment,  declaring  that  all 
rights  not  expressly  granted  were  reserved  to  the  people 
and  the  States,  would  be  adopted. 

While  this  dread  of  centralization  in  the  national  gov- 
ernment was  thus  shown,  no  less  opposition  doubtless 
existed  to  the  idea  that  the  State  governments  had  abso- 
lute sovereignty,  in  the  sense  in  which  that  word  is  used 
by  Austin  and  many  modern  writers. 

The  State  governments  had  been  formed  in  the  midst 
of  troublesome  times  after  the  model  of  the  colonial  gov- 
ernments ;  these  certainly  possessed  no  unlimited  powers, 
and  no  intention  to  make  a  radical  new  departure  can  be 
shown.  The  members  of  the  legislature  were  not  chosen, 
as  at  present,  by  divisions  of  counties,  but  were  elected 
by  the  county  on  what  we  would  call  a  general  ticket — 
so   that   they  represented  not   a   mere   number  of  indi- 


14 

viduals,  but  the  counties  or  groups  of  associated  indi- 
viduals. 

Not  till  1846  were  the  supervisors  authorized,  in  this 
State,  to  divide  counties  into  election  districts. 

This  autonomy  of  these  associations,  smaller  than  the 
State,  is  most  clearly  seen  in  the  New  England  States, 
where  that  Germanic  institution  had  had  fullest  oppor- 
tunity to  develop  itself.  Thus,  De  Tocqueville  says  in 
his  above  cited  "  Democracy  in  America,"  on  pages  6y 
and  66 :  "  It  is  important  to  remember  that  they  [the 
towns]  have  not  been  invested  with  privileges,  but  that 
they  seem,  on  the  contrary,  to  have  surrendered  a  portion 
of  their  independence  to  the  State.  ...  I  believe 
that  not  a  man  is  to  be  found  who  would  acknowledge 
that  the  State  had  any  right  to  interfere  in  their  local 
interests.  .  .  .  Hence  arises  the  maxim  that  every 
one  is  the  best  and  sole  judge  of  his  own  private  interest. 
.  .  .  The  township  taken  as  a  whole,  and  in  relation 
to  the  government  of  the  country,  may  be  looked  upon 
as  an  individual  to  whom  the  theory  I  have  iust  alluded 
to  is  applied." 

The  statutes  of  Connecticut  (Title  7,  ch.  2  of  Revision 
of  1874)  recognize  this  reserved  right  in  the  people  of  the 
towns  to  make  such  regulations  for  their  welfare,  not  con- 
cerning matters  of  a  criminal  nature,  nor  repugnant  to 
the  laws  of  the  State,  as  they  deem  expedient. 

In  fact  the  town,  county,  state  and  national  govern- 
ment were  all  of  at  least  equal  importance,  and  to  no  one 
of  them  were  the  people  supposed  to  have  surrendered 
absolute  authority.  The  sovereignty,  if  that  is  a  proper 
term,  remained  in  the  people,  which  could  intrust  por- 
tions of  it  at  different  times  to  the  government  of  these 
larger  or  smaller  associations,  as  the  common  interests  of 
that  association  demanded.  In  the  words  ot  Elbridge 
Gerry :  "  We  are  neither  the  same  nation,  nor  different 


15 

nations.  We  ought  not,  therefore,  to  pursue  the  one  or 
the  other  of  these  ideas  too  closely."  If  anywhere,  it 
was  in  the  smallest  association  that  the  greatest  power 
resided. 

In  the  words  of  Governor  Seymour,  in  the  article  in 
the  "  North  American  Review,"  above  cited :  "  When  we 
have  secured  good  government  in  towns  and  counties, 
most  of  the  objects  of  government  are  gained.  In  the 
ascending  scale  of  rank,  in  the  descending  scale  of  import- 
ance is  the  legislature." 

We  see,  therefore,  that  the  men  of  the  Revolution  did 
not  regard  the  inhabitants  of  this  country  as  a  mere  num- 
ber of  individuals,  but  as  associations  of  men  seeking 
a  common  livelihood,  whose  interests  as  members  of  these 
associations,  required  to  be  represented  in  the  govern- 
ment ;  and  that  the  great  fear  at  that  time  was,  that  the 
numerically  larger  association  would  interfere  with  the 
rights  and  duties  of  the  smaller  associations. 

The  fact  that  the  people  consisted  almost  entirely  of 
"  husbandmen"  made  the  geographical  divsion  of  election 
districts  the  only  proper  one ;  only  thus  could  they  be 
enabled  to  send  representatives  of  their  real  interests  to 
the  legislatures ;  with  what  opposition  would  a  proposi- 
tion have  been  met,  that  15,000  inhabitants  of  tobacco- 
growing  Virginia  should  vote  for  one  representative, 
together  with  15,000  farmers  of  New  Hampshire!  They 
could  not  foresee  that  within  so  short  a  time — by  the 
application  of  steam  and  the  progress  of  science — so  many 
new  means  of  extracting  force,  i.  e.,  obtaining  the  means 
of  livelihood  from  other  substances  than  the  earth,  would 
be  discovered  ;  and  that  thereby  men  would  be  freed  from 
the  necessity  of  direct  connection  with  the  soil,  and  could 
thus  support  themselves  in  large  numbers,  in  a  small 
space,  by  manipulating  the  detached  products  of  the  soil- 


i6 


IV. 


-GROWTH  OF  CITIES  AND  OF  MEANS  OF  OBTAINING  A  LIVING 
OTHER   THAN   BY   FARMING. 

ACCORDING  to  the  census  of  1790,  three  and  one- 
third  per  cent,  of  our  total  population  lived  in  cities 
with  more  than  8,000  inhabitants ;  according  to  the  last 
census  over  50  per  cent,  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  New 
York  lived  in  such  cities. 

The  positive  and  relative  growth  of  city  life  is  shown 
by  the  following  table  of  the  population  of  the  State  and 
of  the  City  of  New  York,  in  the  ten  census  reports : 


The  population  of  New  York  State. 
The  population  of  New  York  City.. 

The  population  of  New  York  State.  1,918,608  2,428,921  3,097,394  3,880,735 
The  population  of  New  York  City..      202,589      312,710      515,547      813,669 

1870.  1880. 

The  population  of  New  York  State.  4,382,759  5,082,871 
The  population  of  New  York  City..      942,292  1,206,299 

We  see,  therefore,  that  the  ratio  of  the  population  of  the 
•city  to  the  State  has  increased  from  less  than  one-tenth  to 
nearly  one-quarter,  and  that  the  city  has  now  four  times 
as  many  inhabitants  as  the  State  had  in  1790.  The 
United  States  now  have  an  urban  population  of  13,000,- 
000,  and  New  York  State  has  58  cities  of  over  8,000 
inhabitants,  with  a  total  urban  population  of  2,726,367. 

Well  may  this  age  be  called  the  era  of  great  cities,  and 
to  no  State  does  this  apply  better  than  to  our  own. 


1790. 

1800. 

1 8 10. 

1820. 

340,120 

589,051 

959.049 

1,372,111 

33.131 

60,515 

93.373 

123,706 

1830. 

1840. 

1850. 

i860. 

*7 


V. 

ABOLITION  OF   REAL    ESTATE  QUALIFICATION  FOR  VOTERS. 

THE  only  change  in  our  political  system,  to  correspond 
to  this  total  change  in  our  daily  life  and  business  occu- 
pation, has  been  to  abolish  the  qualification  of  ownership 
of  real  estate  for  the  exercise  of  the  franchise,  under  the 
influence  of  the  theories  of  the  Democratic  party. 

One  of  the  chief  causes  of  the  fall  of  the  Federal  party 
was  its  failure  to  recognize  and  provide  for  this  change  of 
the  population ;  as  Hamilton  said  in  his  plan  for  "  The 
Christian  Constitutional  Society  :"  "  The  populous  cities 
ought  particularly  to  be  attended  to.  .  .  .  The  cities  have 
been  employed  by  the  Jacobins  to  give  an  impulse  to  the 
country."  But  his  plan  was  not  carried  out — even  if  it 
could  have  been  successful,  and  the  discontent  of  the 
inhabitants  of  cities  was  not  removed. 

This  change  was  accomplished  in  this  State  substan- 
tially by  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1821.  The 
debates  show  that  it  was  a  contest  between  the  desire  of 
the  growing  population  of  cities  for  political  power  to 
protect  their  interests,  and  the  wish  of  the  agricultural 
communities  to  preserve  their  preponderance. 

Chancellor  Kent  said :  "  It  is  to  protect  this  important 
class  of  the  community  [farmers],  that  the  Senate  should 
be  preserved.  It  should  be  the  representative  of  the 
landed  interest.  ...  It  1773,  New  York  City  con- 
tained only  21,000  inhabitants,  in  1821  123,000  souls  !  .  . 
and  it  is  no  hazardous  prophecy  to  foretell  that  in  less 
than  a  century,  that  city  will  govern  the  State.  And  can 
gentlemen  seriously  and  honestly  say,  that  no  danger  is  to 


iS 

be  apprehended  from  those  combustible  materials  which 
such  a  city  must  ever  enclose?"  (page  116  of  Clarke's 
Constitutional  Debates).  And  Judge  Spencer  argued: 
"  The  landed  interest  of  this  State  must  thus  be  at 
the  mercy  of  a  description  of  men  who  have  no  solid  and 
permanent  interest  in  your  institutions  "  (page  1 1 5  ib.). 

In  favor  of  the  abolition  of  the  property  qualification, 
Mr.  Buel  claimed  :  "  The  city  population  will  never  be 
able  to  depress  that  of  the  country.  .  .  .  From  what 
combination  of  other  interests  can  danger  arise  to  the 
landed  interests  ?  The  mercantile  and  manufacturing- 
interests  are  the  only  ones  which  can  obtain  a  formidable 
influence"  (p.  124  ib.). 

Mr.  Van  Buren,  in  a  very  able  and  elaborate  speech, 
showed  that  New  York  City  paid  taxes  on  sixty-nine 
millions  dollars  worth  of  property,  being  twenty-seven 
millions  more  than  the  eastern  district,  and  twenty-four 
millions  more  than  the  middle  district,  and  fourteen  mill- 
ions more  than  the  western  district ;  and  yet  the  western 
district  sends  nine  senators,  the  middle  district  nine,  the 
eastern  eight,  and  New  York  City  one  senator. 

This  claim  of  the  inhabitants  of  cities  to  have  their 
interests  represented  was  granted,  in  principle,  by  abol- 
ishing the  requirement  of  land  ownership  for  the  franchise ; 
but,  unfortunately,  the  reform  stopped  there,  and  no  plan 
for  representing  the  various  real  interests  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  cities  was  devised.  Perhaps  the  chief  reason 
herefor  was  the  prevalence,  at  that  time,  of  the  theories 
of  Rousseau,  transplanted  by  Jefferson,  which  made  the 
only  object  of  government  the  assertion  of  the  so-called 
rights  of  men,  and  recognized  the  need  of  no  associations 
for  a  people,  except  one  almighty  state,  as  described  in 
my  last  year's  lecture  on  the  history  of  the  social  contract 
theory.  This  theory  was  very  useful  here,  as  in  France, 
for  tearing  down  antiquated  institutions,  but  it  also  pre- 


i9 

vented  the  adoption  of  the  new  forms  of  government  and 
representation,  necessary  lor  the  new  groupings  of  men 
with  common  material  interests  in  cities. 

Thus,  the  strongest  champion  of  the  citizens  in  the  Con- 
vention of  1 82 1,  Mr.  Root,  had  declared:  "We  have  no 
different  estates  having  different  interests,  necessary  to 
be  guarded  from  encroachment  by  the  watchful  eye  of 
jealousy.  We  are  all  the  same  estate — all  commoners. 
.  .  .  These  powerful  checks  may  be  necessary  between 
different  families  possessing  adverse  interests,  but  can 
never  be  salutary  among  brothers  of  the  same  family, 
whose  interests  are  similar." 

In  compliance  with  this  Utopian  theory,  the  inhabitants 
of  cities  were  admitted  to  the  franchise,  divided  for  con- 
venience of  voting  into  artificial  groups  of  men,  living 
near  a  certain  polling  booth. 

This  was  not  even  the  theory  of  Rousseau,  for  his  school 
contemplated  the  existence  of  small  agricultural  commu- 
nities, in  which  all  citizens  could  meet  at  once  in  a  public 
meeting ;  the  great  cities  of  even  his  day  and  the  large 
countries  of  Europe  were  deemed  misfortunes  to  be 
remedied.  In  fact,  our  present  city  governments  are  an 
accidental  growth,  formed  by  attempting  to  copy  too 
closely  theories  and  practices,  which  work  well  in  agri- 
cultural communities,  where  alone  men  are  divided  into 
groups  having  common  material  interests,  by  geographi- 
cal lines. 


20 


VI. 


UNSCIENTIFIC   CHARACTER   OF   OUR   THEORY    OF    CITY 
GOVERNMENT. 

NO  writers  on  political  science  justify  our  city  govern- 
ments. In  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  few,  if  any, 
references  are  found  to  city  government ;  more  modern 
writers  on  political  science  shake  their  heads  and  pass  by 
on  the  other  side,  to  the  more  attractive  subject  of  town- 
ship government,  as  if  the  form  of  government  for  thir- 
teen millions  of  our  most  industrious  and  wealthy  citizens 
did  not  deserve  as  much  attention  as  the  hackneyed  sub- 
ject of  the  New  England  town.  Lieber  states :  "  Though 
1  own  that  one  of  the  problems  we  have  yet  to  solve  is 
how  to  unite  in  large  cities  the  highest  degree  of  indi- 
vidual liberty  and  order  "  (p.  392). 

Woolsey,  in  his  "  Political  Economy,"  acknowledges  that 
"  a  township  where  there  is  a  scattered  population  with 
at  most  a  village  or  two,  needs  one  kind  of  government, 
while  a  city  with  a  compact  population  needs  another," 
(p.  366),  and  "  that  for  some  reason  or  other  our  present 
system  [of  city  government]  is  exceedingly  bad,  the  experi- 
ence of  New  York  will  prove,"  (p.  369),  but  as  to  a  remedy 
he  confines  himself  to  a  few  antiquated  suggestions  con- 
cerning the  introduction  of  a  property  qualification. 

Governor  Seymour,  in  his  article  entitled  "  The  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,"  in  the  North  American 
Review  of  1878,  in  which  he  lauds  the  local  township 
government,  as  the  political  unit  of  our  nation,  to  which 
our  greatness  is  due,  has  nothing  to  say  for  us  inhabitants 


21 

of  cities,  except :  "  Its  [the  township  government]  work- 
ings are  more  clearly  seen  in  the  country  than  in  cities." 

Of  foreign  writers,  I  will  only  cite  Professor  Gneist  in 
his  article  on  the  "  Government  of  the  City  of  London  " 
(p.  52  in  Von  Holtzendorf 's  "  Popular  Writings  ") :  "Among 
all  communities,  the  cities  in  their  unexpected,  gigantic 
growth  are  still  unsolved  problems  for  the  legislator  ;  " 
and  "  a  city  in  which  a  party  wall  makes  inhabitants 
greater  strangers  than  miles  of  distance,  can  not  be  organ- 
ized on  the  simple  plan  of  a  peasant  community  or  a  stock 
company." 

And  as  President  Woolsey  states,  on  p.  384  of  his  work, 
above  cited  :  "A  general  law  for  town  administration  is 
easier  to  be  framed  than  for  cities  with  varying  and  vast 
interests  "  (p.  384). 

No  one  knows  better  than  the  citizens  of  New  York 
how  far  these  words  fall  short  of  describing  the  actual 
condition  of  our  government.  The  "  vast  and  varying 
interests  "  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  city  are  represented 
in  the  Board  of  Aldermen  almost  exclusively  by  liquor 
dealers,  whose  regular  characteristic  joke  is  to  hang 
their  overcoats  and  plug  hats  on  two  busts  of  American 
statesmen — and  who  have  not  yet  organized  this  year, 
owing  to  the  desire  of  a  fraction  of  the  majority  to  make 
a  liquor  dealer  whose  appearance  would  make  him  a 
marked  man  in  any  assembly  of  merchants,  tradesmen,  or 
master  mechanics,  president.  The  cry  to  deprive  the 
Board  of  Aldermen  of  every  power,  and  even  to  abolish 
it,  is  becoming  stronger  ;  it  is  recognized  as  an  anachron- 
ism. The  Board  has  now  been  reduced  to  a  state  of  help- 
lessness, incompatible  with  the  needs  of  our  growing  city  ; 
for  example,  it  cannot  raise  money  even  to  employ  a 
stenographer  to  make  an  investigation.  Many  of  the 
departments  are  entirely  independent,  and  all  real  power 
over  the  finances  has  been  assumed  by  the  mysterious 


22 

Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment,  which  determines 
the  appropriation  for  each  department,  once  lor  ail, 
before  the  beginning  of  the  year — a  plan  necessarily 
inconvenient  and  extravagant — but  which  all  prefer  to 
trusting  our  "  representatives"  with  the  city  finances.  In 
the  Legislature  our  "  varying  and  vast  interests'*  are  repre- 
sented also  to  a  large  extent  by  liquor  dealers,  although 
there  are  several  well-meaning,  respectable  lawyers  in  the 
delegation.  One  of  these  is  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Commerce,  and,  as  he  acknowledged  after  his  appoint- 
ment, he  knew  the  difference  between  a  canal-boat  and  a 
Cunarder  ;  but  that  was  all  he  knew  about  commerce. 
In  Congress,  the  delegation  is  smaller  and  more  respecta- 
ble, in  proportion  ;  but  no  one  claims  that  it  fairly  repre 
sents  our  "varying  and  vast  interests ; '  the  legal  proles 
sion  predominates,  to  the  exclusion  of  other  trades  and 
professions,  as  much  in  Congress  as  the  liquor  dealers  do 
in  the  Board  of  Aldermen  .  more  than  half  of  the  present 
Congress  are  lawyers. 

As  to  self-government  in  cities,  there  is  even  less  of 
that  than  of  representation.  The  nearest  approach  to  it, 
for  the  1,200,000  citizens,  is  the  party  caucus  in  the  elec- 
tion district ;  if  a  man  happens  to  hear  where  it  is  to  be 
held,  and  if  he  attends,  the  browbeating  and  contempt 
with  which  unknown  faces  are  treated  prevent  a  second 
attempt.  The  District  and  Police  Courts  have  in  cer- 
tain cases  a  jurisdiction  limited  to  their  district,  that  is 
about  all  the  self-government  there  is  in  this  city.  The  elec- 
tion districts  are  mapped  out  in  a  curious  manner,  with 
the  professed  attempt  to  bring  an  equal  number  of 
voters  in  each  ;  but  in  fact  the  object  of  laying  out  the 
districts  was  generally  to  secure  to  some  little  political 
boss  the  assured  control  of  his  "  deestrick"  by  an  appro- 
priate arrangement  of  his  friends  and  foes.  The  average 
citizen  does  not  know  the  limit  of  his  district ;  he  has  but 


* 


23 

the  slightest  interests  in  common  with  the  unknown  men 
with  whom  he  is  called  on  to  elect  a  "  representative,"  or 
the  only  local  magistrate,  the  District  Court  Judge. 

And  yet  the  inhabitants  of  cities  are  not  different  be- 
ings from  the  farmers ;  like  them,  they  are  groups  of  men 
whose  most  important  interest  is  to  gain  an  honest,  steady 
living  ;  like  them,  they  want  to  keep  their  business  or  trade 
from  being  injured  by  men  with  other  and  opposing  inter- 
ests ;  like  them,  they  want  to  exercise  a  certain  control 
over  dishonest  fellow  professional  or  tradesmen,  who  are 
injuring  their  business  by  dishonest  work. 

In  short,  you  may  apply  every  description  of  a  town- 
ship to  a  trade,  business  or  professional  organization  of 
men  living  in  cities ;  but  to  apply  that  description  to  one 
of  our  geographical  election  districts  is  the  bitterest  irony. 


..-:.      VII. 

HISTORICAL   ORIGIN   OF   OUR   THEORY   OF   CITY 
GOVERNMENT. 

HOW  has  it  come,  then,  that  the  government  of  all 
modern  cities  is  based  upon  this  plan  of  dividing  a 
city  by  geographical  lines  ?  The  answer  is,  that  it  is  due, 
in  the  first  place,  in  Europe,  to  the  jealousy  of  royalty, 
supported  by  a  land-owning  nobility,  of  the  power  of  citi- 
zens, united,  according  to  the  natural  plan,  i,  e.,  accord- 
ing to  their  interests.  In  England,  for  example,  the  tyrant 
Tudors  began  and  the  Stuarts  finished  the  disorganization 
of  the  citizens,  because  they  feared  their  opposition  to  ab- 
solute government. 

The  English  cities  existed  long  before  charters  were 
granted  to  them  and,  like  those  of  the  Continent,  owe  their 


24 

growth  and  prosperity  to  the  guild-associations  of  citi- 
zens according  to  their  different  trades,  which  in  great 
part  took  the  place  of  the  older  wards  or  frith-guilds, 
which  consisted  generally  of  land  owners.  The  latter 
might  be  compared  as  to  their  origin  to  our  Western 
Vigilance  Committees.  The  following  citations  show 
how  the  old  rural  division  into  wards  was  replaced  by 
the  guilds  of  merchants,  which  term  became  synonymous 
with  the  city  corporation ;  thus  Glanville  says  that,  if  a 
villain  have  remained  a  year  and  a  day  in  the  city,  "  ita 
quod  in  communian,  scilicet  gyldam  tamquam  civis  re- 
ceptus  fuer it,  eo  ipso  a  villenagio  liberabitur."  (De  Legi- 
bus,  lib.  v.,  c.  5.) 

Brady's  conclusion,  in  his  English  Burghs,  published  in 
1700,  is  :  "A  free  burgess  was  no  other  than  a  man  that 
exercised  free  trade,  according  to  the  liberties  and  privi- 
leges of  his  burgh,  whether  he  resided  in  it,  or  whether  he 
had  liberty  to  live  and  trade  otherwhere  "  (p.  47). 

The  first  city  charters  appear  to  have  been  granted  in 
King  John's  time  ;  that  of  Andever  is  granted  "  homini- 
bus  de  Andever  guod  habeant  Gyldam  Mercatoriam  in  And- 
ever." 

Norfolk  had,  in  the  twelfth  year  of  Henry  III.,  for  its 
burgesses,  merchants  and  traders  at  sea  and  upon  the 
water. 

In  the  time  of  Edward  III.,  the  whole  government  of 
the  City  of  London  was,  for  seventy  years,  in  the  hands 
of  certain  guilds  ;  after  that,  apart  of  the  power  was  given 
back  to  the  wards,  but  the  guilds  still  retain  certain  powers 
to  this  day. 

The  contest  between  land  owners  and  traders  in  Eng- 
lish cities  was,  however,  never  so  violent  as  on  the  Con- 
tinent, owing  to  the  stronger  central  power  of  the  English 
kings,  but  Toulmin  Smith's  Collection  of  the  Charters  of 
English  Guilds  shows  to  what  a  large  extent  these  associa- 


25 

tions  of  tradesmen  participated  in  the  local  and  general 
affairs  of  government. 

It  was  Henry  VIII.,  and  after  him  Edward  VI.,  who  by 
the  confiscation  of  the  property  of  the  guilds  and  by  their 
suppression,  struck  at  the  root  of  the  liberties  of  English 
cities.  Queen  Elizabeth  imposed  heavy  taxes  on  them, 
and  the  Stuarts  naturally  followed  a  similar  policy. 

The  overthrow  of  real  city  government  dates  from  the 
Restoration,  when  the  old  borroughs  were  called  on  to 
produce  grants  from  the  crown,  as  authority  for  their 
municipal  rights.  Jeffries  denied  that  of  London,  with 
its  oldest  exclusive  jurisdiction  in  the  land;  and  the 
smaller  burghs,  intimidated  by  the  treatment  of  London, 
made  haste  to  surrender  their  old  charters  to  the  crown, 
and  to  receive  in  return  new  charters,  in  giving  which 
good  care  was  taken  that  all  remains  of  municipal  sell- 
government,  and  the  means  of  allowing  citizens  to  unite 
according  to  their  interests,  were  removed. 

The  government  of  cities  was  placed  in  the  hands  of 
artificial,  small,  select  bodies,  which  could  be  easily 
managed  by  the  crown,  with  whose  selection  or  control 
the  citizens  had  little  or  nothing  to  do.  This  legacy  of 
the  Stuart  despotism  was  confirmed  by  William  III.,  who 
was  probably  as  little  a  friend  of  popular  government  as 
his  predecessors  ;  he  confirmed  the  new  charters,  and  in 
the  words  of  Lieber:  "  Cities  in  England  were  considered 
in  the  last  century  chiefly  with  reference  to  parliamentary 
elections;"  and  since  that  time  no  thorough  scientific 
study  or  treatment  of  the  subject  appears  to  have  occupied 
the  minds  of  England's  great  thinkers,  although  the  cities 
have  been  confessedly  hot-beds  of  crime  and  misery; 
changes  have  been  made  without  system;  and  to-day, 
while  a  great  clamor  exists  for  the  removal  of  the  remains 
of  these  deformed  remnants  of  guild-governments,  no  sat- 
isfactory substitute  is  suggested,  except  a  general  exten- 


26 

sion  of  the  suffrage,  which  will  give  England  the  same 
experience  which  we  have  had  since  1826.  In  the  words 
of  Professor  Jameson:  "  It  is  not  possible  to  set  forth  a 
single  definite  scheme  of  town-government  and  say,  This 
was,  in  this  reign,  the  form  of  municipal  government  in 
England." 

Our  earliest  American  charters  date  unfortunately  from 
the  age  of  Stuart  despotism  ;  that  of  New  York  was  made 
probably  under  the  personal  supervision  of  James  II.,  and 
under  the  illiberal  George  II,  the  charter  was  reaffirmed 
with  additions,  his  attorney-general  Bradley  certifying 
that  it  contained  nothing  "  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of 
his  Majesty."  Albany,  the  only  other  New  York  city, 
prior  to  the  Revolution,  received  a  similar  so-called 
Dongan  Charter. 

The  Mayor  was  to  be  appointed,  the  ordinances  of  the 
Board  of  Aldermen  were  to  have  force  only  for  three 
months,  etc.  Of  course,  no  provision  is  made  for  the 
organization  of  citizens  according  to  their  trades,  etc.,  to 
protect  their  interests  ;  James  was  not  going  to  have  in 
future,  in  American  cities,  the  same  organizations  which 
had  opposed  the  aspiration  of  his  family  in  England  :  the 
citizens  were  to  vote  like  countrymen,  in  wards  where 
they  resided.  The  contrast  between  this  Stuart  charter, 
with  its  mass  of  unorganized  citizens,  and  the  true  Ger- 
manic city,  is  seen  for  example  by  a  glance  at  the  "  Plat- 
form of  Government '  made  by  the  New  England  Com- 
pany, which  had  been  chartered  by  James  I.  to  settle  New 
England,  and  which  planted,  in  the  Queen  Ann  Colony, 
the  germ  of  New  England  government.  This  "  platform  " 
was  dedicated,  in  1662,  to  Prince  Charles  (afterwards 
Charles  I.)  and  states  .  "  And  there  is  no  less  care  to  be 
taken  for  the  trade  and  public  commerce  of  merchants, 
whose  government  ought  to  be  within  themselves,  in  respect 
of   the   several   occasions  arising  between  them  "  ;  and  in 


another  place,  it  states,  that  the  merchants  and  mechanics 
should  govern  the  cities. 

How  different  might  the  history  of  American  cities 
have  been,  had  this  colonization  of  the  company  not 
failed,  and  had  it  not  been  forced  to  give  up  its  charter 
in    1635. 

The  colonization  of  New  England  proceeded  then  by 
Englishman,  mostly  from  the  agricultural  districts  of 
Eastern  England.  They  formed  good  rural  governments, 
but  they  saw  no  necessity  for  making  any  distinction 
for   cities. 

Thus,  Palfrey  in  History  of  New  England  (vol.  II.,  p. 
12),  declares :  "  In  law  a  city  is  a  town. "  And  Dillon, 
on  Municipal  Corporations  (p.  463),  says :  "  In  New 
England  towns  gradually  merged  into  cities,  and  that 
which  was  done  by  the  direct  meeting  of  the  citizens,  is 
subsequently  attempted  to  be  accomplished  by  representa- 
tives. "  Before  the  Revolution,  there  were  no  chartered 
cities  in  New  England.  Boston  was  governed  by  select 
men  until  1822. 

From  these  two  types,  the  one  taken  from  the  New 
England  country  town,  and  the  other  from  the  Stuart 
city,  an  endless  number  of  variations  have  been  formed 
which  it  is  unnecessary  here  to  follow ;  suffice  it  to  say 
that  none  of  them  are  satisfactory.  It  reminds  one  of  De 
Tocqueville's  description  of  France,  under  the  Old 
Regime,  before  the  revolution  :  "  Civic  rights  were  con- 
stantly bestowed,  taken  away,  restored,  increased,  modi- 
fied in  thousand  ways  and  unceasingly.  No  better  indi- 
cation of  the  contempt  into  which  all  local  liberties  had 
fallen  can  be  found,  than  such  eternal  changes  of  the  law 
which  no  one  seemed  to  notice"  (p,  371). 

No  wonder  that  our  citizens  have  also  lost  all  hope 
from  so-called  "  tinkering  with  the  charter,"  and  have 
suffered  a   principle  to   become  law,   that,  as  Mr.  Stern 


28 

says,  in  the  above  quoted  article :  "  The  American  city 
has  no  chartered  privileges  which  anybody  is  bound  to 
respect.  "  See  also:  Kent's  Commentaries,  p.  275  :  "  Such 
powers  [of  counties,  cities,  towns  and  villages]  are  subject 
to  the  control  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State."  And  in 
Darlington  vs.  Mayor  of  New  York  (31  N.  Y.,  164)  Denio, 
J.,  held :  "  City  Corporations  are  emanations  of  the 
supreme  law-making  power  of  the  State.  "  The  principle 
that  our  Legislature  possesses  this  power,  claimed  by  the 
Stuarts,  in  this  land  of  liberty,  and  against  which,  in  other 
days,  men  have  been  so  ready  to  stake  their  lives,  and 
which  makes  all  attempts  at  improvement,  which  at  best 
can  be  but  gradual,  liable  at  any  moment  to  be  over- 
thrown, has  also  been  repeatedly  affirmed  by  the  United 
States  Courts ;  for  example,  in  United  States  vs.  Railroad 
Company  (17  Wall,  329)  and  New  Orleans  vs.  Clark  (95 
United  States,  653).  Our  State  Courts  have  gove  even 
further  and  declared  that  not  only  the  city's  public  rights, 
but  also  the  property  owned  by  the  city,  as  a  corporation, 
is  under  the  absolute  control  of  the  State,  in  People  vs. 
Kerr  in  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  (27  N.  Y.,  188). 

As  Mr.  Stern  says,  in  his  article  on  cities,  in  "  Lalor's 
Encyclopaedia" :  "  We  have  lost,  in  fact,  though  not  in 
name,  our  chartered  privileges  as  binding  contracts  with 
the  State." 


29 


VIII. 


OUR    ROMAN    LAW    THEORY   OF   THE   RELATION    OF   STATE 
AND   CITY   GOVERNMENT. 

BESIDES  the  example  of  these  cities,  with  charters 
designed  by  the  Stuarts,  a  mistaken  theory  as  to  the 
origin  of  corporations  in  general,  and  their  relation  to  the 
State,  has  tended  to  keep  our  municipalities  in  abject 
submission  to  the  State. 

The  definition  commonly  placed  at  the  beginning  of 
treatises  on  corporations,  is  that  of  Chief  Justice  Mar- 
shall, in  the  Dartmouth  College  Case,  that  a  corporation 
is  "  an  artificial  being,  invisible,  intangible,  and  existing 
only  in  contemplation  of  law ;"  and  then  follows  Chancel- 
lor Kent's  statement :  "  Public  corporations  are  such  as 
are  created  by  the  government  for  political  purposes,  as 
counties,  cities,  towns  and  villages."     (Comra.,  II.,  p.  275.) 

Since  then  public  corporations  are  originated  by  the 
State,  and  exist  "  only  in  contemplation  of  law,"  it  must 
follow  that  the  State  can  change  or  abolish  them  at  any 
time.  • 

But  is  it  an  historical  fact  that  the  State  formed  all 
smaller  unions  for  political  purposes,  such  as  counties, 
cities,  towns,  etc.  ? 

Were  not  the  Anglo-Saxon  monarchies  formed  by  a 
union  of  the  inhabitants  of  various  districts,  which  still 
exist  as  parishes  ?  Was  not  the  Heptarchy  formed  from 
a  union  of  these  monarchies,  which  continued  later  to 
exist,  with  more  or  less  independence,  as  subdivisions  of 
the  kingdom  of  England  ?     The  shires  and  parishes  and 


3° 

cities  of  England  were  not  all  created  by  the  State  ;  on 
the  contrary,  many  of  them  existed  before  the  State,  and 
assisted  in  creating  the  State. 

As  Coke  says,  in  5  Reports,  p.  64 :  "  The  inhabitants  of 
a  town  without  any  custom,  may  make  ordinances  or  by- 
laws for  any  such  thing  which  is  for  the  general  good  of 
the  public,  unless  it  is  indeed  pretended  by  any  such  by- 
law to  abridge  the  general  liberty  of  the  people." 

As  to  private  associations,  with  the  right  to  contract 
and  hold  property  as  an  association,  it  is  equally  true  that 
a  formal  incorporation  was  not  originally  required  there- 
for. 

Thus  Kyd,  in  his  work  on  Corporations  (1793),  says: 
"  The  capacity  of  contracting  in  a  collective  capacity,  was 
not  in  ancient  times  [under  Henry  III.]  confined  to  a  cor- 
poration." The  right  of  unincorporated  associations  to 
hold  property  is  further  shown  by  the  statutes  of  Queen 
Elizabeth's  time.     (5th  Eliz.,  c.  27.) 

II  we  look  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  we  see  number- 
less associations,  with  all  the  rights  now  claimed  by  cor- 
porations, springing  into  existence  without  an  act  of  the 
State,  or,  in  many  cases,  where  no  State  (according  to  the 
modern  fashionable  definition  of  the  word)  could  be  said 
to  exist ;  we  see  them  also  uniting  and  forming  them- 
selves into  modern  States. 

In  fact,  according  to  Germanic  principles,  the  State  did 
not  create  the  corporations,  but  the  corporations  created 
the  State. 

In  the  Roman  law  it  was  different ;  there,  especially  the 
later  Byzantine  emperors,  in  their  dread  of  any  approach 
to  popular  freedom,  made  the  sanction  of  the  State  an 
essential  part  of  a  corporation.  This  theory  was  particu- 
larly pleasing  to  the  European  monarchs,  who  wished  to 
emulate  the  absolute  power  of  the  Roman  monarch,  and 
to   hide   their   breach   of  Germanic   customs   under  the 


3i 

mysterious  cloak  of  the  Pandects.  Hence  this  theory  was. 
introduced  in  the  time  of  the  Tudors  and  Stuarts,  and 
corporations  were  said  to  exist  only  by  privilege  granted 
by  the  sovereign. 

Recollections  of  the  old  Germanic  system  still  re- 
mained. Thus  Coke  says,  (in  I.  Inst.,  3a,  Cities):  "The 
parishioners,  or  inhabitants,  or  probi  homines  of  Dale, 
or  church-wardens,  are  not  capable  to  purchase  lands,  but 
goods  they  are,  unless  it  were  in  ancient  time  when  such 
grants  were  allowed." 

And  Dugdale,  in  his  Warwickshire  (1730),  says:  "They 
[guilds]  were  in  use  long  before  any  formal  licenses  were 
granted  them."     (Page  188.) 

And  Kyd,  in  his  above  cited  works,  after  mentioning 
the  present  rule,  that  an  unincorporated  association  can- 
not hold  land,  says :  "  It  is  difficult  to  account  for  the 
establishment  of  this  rule.  .  .  .  The  Societies  of  the 
Inns  of  Court  are  not  corporations ;  yet,  in  their  collective 
capacities,  they  have  held  the  property  of  the  ground 
on  which  the  chambers  are  built,  ever  since  they  were 
established." 

The  rule  cannot  be  accounted  for,  however,  like  many 
other  anomalies  of  our  law,  when  we  remember  that  it 
has  been  taken  from  the  Roman  law,  and  replaced  an  old 
Germanic  rule  which  held  the  contrary. 

So  long  as  we  neglect  the  study  of  the  history  of  our 
Germanic  institutions,  we  will  continue  to  believe  in  such 
statements  as  that  of  Blackstone,  on  this  subject  (I.,  ch. 
18):  "The  honor  of  originally  inventing  these  political 
constitutions  [corporations]  entirely  belongs  to  the  Rom- 
ans." This  opinion  is  adopted  by  Chancellor  Kent  (vol. 
II.,  p.  269),  and  his  words  have  been  copied  by  subsequent 
writers  almost  verbatim ;  for  example,  in  Angell  and 
Ames,  on  Corporations,  p.  37. 

We   see,  therefore,  that,  according  to   the   Germanic 


32 

theory,  neither  public  nor  private  corporations  are  en- 
tirely dependent  beings  created  by  a  higher  power,  sub- 
ject to  be  changed  at  the  whim  of  that  almighty  sover- 
eignty ;  but  that  each  association  has  its  own  sphere  ol 
legitimate  action,  within  which  the  existence  of  the  small- 
est is  entitled  to  as  much  respect  as  the  largest,  and  that 
.all  come  from  the  same  source,  i.  e.,  the  people. 


IX. 


INSUFFICIENCY    OF    PROPOSED    REMEDIES    FOR    OUR    CITY 
GOVERNMENT. 

WE  see,  therefore,  that  our  present  plan  of  division  of 
inhabitants  of  cities  fails  to  secure  them  real  self- 
government  or  representation  of  their  interests  in  the 
legislative  bodies ;  that  this  plan  is  not  sustained  by  au- 
thority of  political  authors  ;  that  its  origin  entitles  it  to 
no  veneration  or  respect ;  that  its  practical  workings  are 
unsatisfactory. 

The  evils  of  our  New  York  city  government  are  only 
a  little  greater  than  those  of  Philadelphia,  Boston,  etc. ; 
the  description  of  an  election  in  London,  given  by  Prof. 
Gneist,  in  the  article  above  cited,  bears  a  strong  resem- 
blance to  one  of  our  own. 

But  yet  it  will  not  do  to  sit  passively  and  say  that 
44  God  made  the  country,  but  man  made  the  city,"  or  to 
consider  our  great  cities,  as  Bismarck  did,  as  excrescences 
on  the  body  politic;  for,  in  another  century,  our  cities 
will  probably  exceed  in  size  those  of  to-day,  as  much  as 
the  latter  do  those  of  the  Revolution. 

And  yet,  according  to  Mr.  Stern's  above  quoted  article 
in  the  "North  American   Review,"  the  indebtedness  of 


33 

our  eighteen  largest  cities  (excluding  New  Orleans),  from 
i860  to  1875,  has  increased  270.9  per  cent.,  and  the  tax- 
ation has  increased  362.2  per  cent.,  and  the  population 
70.5  per  cent.  The  States  with  the  largest  urban  popu- 
lations are  Pennsylvania  and  New  York,  and  are  these 
not  the  States  in  which  legislative  scandals  are  most 
numerous? 

Does  this  not  prove  that  there  is  some  radical  defect  in 
our  system  of  self-government  and  of  representation  in 
cities? 

The  only  important  remedy  which  has  been  suggested 
is  that  the  franchise  should  be  restricted  by  a  property 
qualification ;  a  lew  gentlemen  proposed  such  a  measure 
in  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1867 — 1868,  and  more 
recently,  but  the  intense  popular  odium  which  this  propo- 
sition attached  to  all  who  were  connected  with  it,  proba- 
bly removes  this  plan  from  the  field  of  practical  politics. 
But  the  plan  is  also  theoretically  indefensible ;  it  would 
unite  the  owners  of  property,  according  to  its  value,  but 
it  would  not  unite  men  according  to  their  many  other 
real  interests,  and  would  shut  out  a  large  number  of 
people  who  have  important,  permanent  interests  in  the 
proper  government  of  the  community  ;  it  would  be  the 
natural  result  of  the  heartless  materialistic  philosophy  of 
the  day.  It  would  introduce  into  the  New  World  cities 
the  fierce  contests  which  distracted  European  cities  in 
the  Middle  Ages,  between  real-estate  owners  and  the 
associations  of  tradesmen,  and  would  end  probably,  as  in 
former  times,  with  the  victory  of  the  latter.  If  elections 
were  held  on  a  general  ticket,  and  the  power  of  the  Mayor 
increased,  this  would  perhaps  somewhat  improve  matters, 
by  removing  the  evils  in  the  present  system  of  pseudo 
self-government  and  representation  in  our  geographical 
election  districts ;  but  no  one  will  consider  a  plan  satis- 
factory which  would  leave  over  a  million  people — more 


34 

than  one-third  of  the  population  of  this  country  when  the 
Constitution  was  formed — without  a  voice  to  represent 
its  various  interests,  and  which  would  hand  over  the  im- 
mense power,  necessary  to  govern  such  an  unorganized 
mass,  to  one  man,  and  would  leave  the  people  only  the 
power  of  selecting  that  man,  at  stated  intervals. 

That  was  the  ideal  state  of  Napoleon  III.;  "the  plebis- 
cite is  the  republic,"  and  it  is  merely  an  acknowlegment 
that  self-government  is  a  failure,  and  that  we  prefer  an 
open,  responsible  boss  to  one  who  works  through  the 
forms  of  an  unsuitable  government  although  he  may  pre- 
serve the  appearance  of  popular  power.  This  is  generally 
the  cause  of  the  growth  of  despotism. 

The  fact  is  that  in  our  great  cities,  with  their  unor- 
ganized masses  of  voters,  a  political  oligarchy  has  grown 
up,  whose  common  interest  it  is  to  preserve  the  present 
helplessness  of  well-meaning  citizens,  by  allowing  them  to 
unite  only  in  an  artificial  group,  according  to  geograph- 
ical lines,  which  the  popular  voice  has  rightly  dubbed 
"the  machine,"  i.  e.,  an  instrument,  which  has  no  life  in 
itself,  but  is  run  by  power  from  outside,  to  suit  others' 
purpose.;.  It  is  in  order  to  preserve  this  system  that  the 
"honored  leaders"  ring  the  changes  on  "individualism," 
so  that  the  people  may  not  hear  the  forging  of  their  chains 
in  these  very  "  Halls,  "  which,  by  their  strict  centraliza- 
tion of  power,  give  the  lie  direct  to  their  professions.  By 
the  same  cry,  before  the  War,  the  poor  white-trash  in  the 
South  was  humbugged  by  the  slave-holding  obligarchy. 
The  great  corporations  with  their  consolidated  power 
have  also  an  interest  in  preserving  this  powerless  indi- 
vidualism. Chauncey  M.  Depew  spoke  not  without  a 
purpose  at  the  dinner  on  Evacuation  Day,  substantially 
as  follows:  ''The  great  principle,  declared  when  the 
British  flag  was  torn  down,  was  the  liberty  of  the  indi- 
vidual and  his  right  and  ability  to  govern  himself." 


35 

General  organizations  of  well-meaning  citizens  with 
committees  of  nine,  twenty-four,  fifty,  seventy,  one  hun- 
dred, etc.,  have  been  tried  again  and  again,  and  found  want- 
ing; Irving  Hall,  the  Young  Men's  Democratic  Club, 
the  County  Democracy,  the  Citizens'  Committee  were 
started  by  some  of  the  best  and  shrewdest  men  in  the 
city,  but  they  all  went  the  same  road.  The  New  Democ- 
racy, which  in  these  days  Mr.  Roosevelt  is  trying  to 
organize,  can  have  no  other  future  ;  he  states  that  the  plan 
of  the  County  Democracy  was  good,  but  that  the  "  bosses" 
got  hold  of  it — and  so  they  will  of  any  artificial,  machine 
organization  of  men,  in  geographical  election  districts; 
even  the  Republican  papers  acknowledge  this  morning 
that  the  new  Republican  organizations  are  practically  in 
the  hands  of  the  old  bosses.*  The  law  for  the  protection 
of  honest  voting  at  primaries  will  f  only  cause  proto- 
primaries  to  be  held,  in  which  candidates  will  be  agreed 
upon  for  election  in  the  primaries. 


*  Since  writing  the  above,  the  election  of  John  J.  O'Brien,  as  temporary 
chairman  of  the  new  organization,  makes  the  fact  patent  to  every  one,  that 
the  old  bosses  are  still  in  command. — Our  politics  are  now:  O'Brien  vs.  Kelly. 


36 


X. 


REPRESENTATION    AND    SELF-GOVERNMENT     FOR    INHABIT- 
ANTS    OF    CITIES. 

WE  have  now  seen  that  the  origin  and  growth  of  Ger- 
manic civilization  has  been  through  the  union  or 
groups  of  men  with  the  same  material  interests ;  that  the 
New  England  township  was  a  model  rural  group  of  that 
character ;  that  the  Fathers  who  formed  our  Constitution, 
intended  to  form  a  government  in  which  these  groups  of 
farmers,  with  their  material  interests,  should  be  fairly 
represented  ;  that  since  then  large  groups  of  men  have 
appeared,  who  gain  their  living  not  from  the  soil,  but 
from  working  its  detached  products,  and  who  consequently 
can  live  in  great  masses,  in  cities ;  that  no  attempt  has 
been  made  to  give  to  these  inhabitants  of  cities,  thus 
grouped  according  to  their  material  interests,  representa- 
tion or  self-government ;  that  the  subject  of  city  govern- 
ment has  never  received  thorough  scientific  consideration ; 
that  our  city  governments  are  formed  after  models  of 
those  introduced  by  the  Stuarts,  for  the  purpose  of 
destroying  popular  government,  by  keeping  the  citizens 
disorganized  in  geographical  election  districts ;  that  these 
governments  fail  to  give  satisfaction,  wherever  they  exist, 
because  citizens  lack  self-government  and  representation  ; 
that  all  attempts  at  improvement  have  failed,  and  that  no 
real  hope  of  improvement  is  held  out  by  any  prominent 
writer.  May  we  not  then  draw  the  conclusion  that,  since 
men  living  in  cities  are  not  essentially  different  from  those 
living  in  the  country,  they  feel  the  same  need  to    rally 


37 

around  their  vital  interests,  i.  e.,  their  means  of  gaining  a 
living,  and  protect  these  interests  from  interference  by 
outsiders,  and  from  injury  by  dishonest  fellow-workmen ; 
in  other  words,  the  trade,  business  and  professional  organ- 
izations need,  and  before  long  will  surely  have  representa- 
tion in  our  city,  state  and  national  legislatures,  and  more 
or  less  self-government  and  control  over  their  own  mem- 
bers, after  the  model  of  the  rural  associations,  called 
townships, 

The  object  of  representative  government  is  to  secure 
consideration  and,  so  far  as  possible,  realization  of  the  wills 
of  the  inhabitants,  and,  since  all  cannot  attend  the  legisla- 
tive meetings  in  large  states,  a  small  number  of  represent- 
atives must  act  for  the  people. 

Men  have  an  infinite  number  of  wishes,  hence  it  is  im- 
possible to  have  all  the  wishes  of  all  the  inhabitants  repre- 
sented, and  we  must  be  content  to  have  their  strongest 
wishes  represented.  To  secure  this,  men  must  first  be 
united  in  groups,  with  strong  wishes  in  common,  and  when 
these  unions  are  represented,  the  most  important  interests 
of  the  people  are  represented.  That  men's  strongest  inter- 
ests centre  around  their  means  of  gaining  a  living,  in  their 
business,  trades,  professions,  or  as  managers  of  their  prop- 
erty, needs  no  argument  in  this  busy  city  of  New  York. 

There  ought  to  be  no  broad  distinction  between  our 
public  and  private  affairs.  If  an  individual  or  a  number 
of  individuals  wish  to  send  an  agent  to  transact  any  busi- 
ness with  others,  the  first  care  is  to  choose  a  man  who  has 
no  other  interest  than  theirs.  The  wisdom  of  this  princi- 
ple is  so  well  established  that  our  law,  for  example,  will 
not  allow  an  agent,  employed  to  sell  a  thing,  to  become 
the  purchaser,  under  any  circumstances ;  no  man  can  serve 
two  masters. 

Only  by  having  men  with  the  same  most  important  in- 
terests united  and  presented,  can  we  have  real  represent- 


3* 

ative  government.  Our  present  representatives  under- 
stand the  wishes  of  their  constituents  about  as  well  as  the 
person  who  is  "  it,"  in  the  children's  game  of  shouting 
proverbs. 

Since,  therefore,  the  participation  of  these  organizations 
appears  to  be  theoretically  in  accordance  with  the  spirit 
of  our  Germanic  institutions,  and  the  legitimate  develop- 
ment of  the  principles  of  the  authors  of  our  Constitution, 
I  think  it  can  be  shown  with  equal  certainty  that  we  will 
derive  direct,  practical  benefits  from  allowing  these  trade, 
business  and  professional  organizations  the  right  of  repre- 
sentation and  a  certain  amount  of  self-government. 


XI. 

PRACTICAL  BENEFITS  FROM  REPRESENTATION  OF  CITIZENS, 
ORGANIZED  ACCORDING  TO  THEIR  INTERESTS. 

BY  allowing  them  representation,  we  will  be  benefited 
as  individuals,  as  members  of  these  organizations  and 
as  members  of  the  State. 

In  the  first  place,  our  rights  as  individuals  are  not  prop- 
erly protected  by  our  so-called  representatives,  because 
they,  as  a  rule,  are  not  up  to  the  general  moral  and  intel- 
lectual standard  of  the  average  citizen. 

When  men  come  together  in  an  election  district  to  make 
political  nominations,  the  man  having  the  most  extensive 
personal  acquaintance  will  surely  control  the  meeting. 

Hard-working  trade,  business,  or  professional  men,  as  a 
rule,  have  but  few  acquaintances  in  their  election  district ; 
the  year  has  not  evenings  enough  to  enable  them  to  get  a 
real  acquaintance  with  their  fellow-voters,  if  they  were  to 
devote  themselves  to  the  task,  especially  if  we  consider  how 


39 

often  our  citizens  move  from  one  district  to  the  other,  and 
also  the  many  social  difficulties  which  would  inevitably 
ensue  from  such  an  attempt.  The  only  class,  which  can 
acquire  such  a  local  acquaintance  is  the  small  retail  trader, 
especially  the  liquor  dealer,  hence  their  prominence  in  our 
government. 

By  hypocritical  professions  of  interest  and  friendship 
with  the  large  number  of  men,  generally  not  of  the  best 
character  in  their  neighborhood,  with  whom  their  busi- 
ness naturally  brings  them  in  contact,  and  by  the  dispen- 
sation of  cheap,  but  highly  prized  favors  to  the  most  needy, 
these  liquor-dealers  wield  and  will  continue  to  wield  great 
influence  in  our  government. 

But  it  is  self-evident  that  these  men,  and  the  profes- 
sional politicians,  which  they  become,  if  sufficiently  adroit, 
do  not  possess  the  same  sterling  qualities  of  heart  and  head 
as  the  average  hard  working  man  engaged  in  commercial, 
trade,  mechanical  or  professional  pursuits.  On  the  other 
hand,  experience  shows  that  delegates  from  business, 
trade  and  professional  organizations  are  not  blatant 
demagogues,  but  that  sober,  hard-working,  conscientious, 
and  able  men  can  alone  gain  the  esteem  and  confidence 
of  their  brethren  in  business  or  trade ;  such  men  would 
not  have  repeatedly  passed  the  Penal  Code,  with  reading 
only  its  first  and  last  sections.  Such  men  will  better  pro- 
tect our  so-called  natural  rights  of  life,  limb,  liberty  and 
property,  than  ward  politicians  and  leaders  of  "deestricks." 
The  last  report  of  the  political  committee  of  the  Union 
League  Club  recognized  this,  when  it  recommended  that 
the  government  of  this  city  had  better  be  left  with  the 
Legislature  at  Albany,  than  entrusted  to  our  own  dele- 
gates, for  they  evidently  preferred  to  trust  to  the  general 
honesty  of  the  men  elected  by  the  associations  of  farmers, 
than  to  our  own  representatives,  elected  according  to  our 
present  system. 


40 

Secondly,  such  men  will  also  protect  our  rights  as  mem- 
bers of  the  various  organizations ;  and  since  the  interest 
of  a  city  consists  only  in  the  aggregate  of  the  important 
interests  of  its  citizens,  and  since  the  important  interest  of 
the  City  of  New  York  is  its  commerce  and  trade,  every- 
thing done  to  foster  and  protect  our  commerce  will  tend 
to  the  welfare  of  the  city. 

Each  man  will,  of  course,  have  the  interest  of  his  own 
association  most  at  heart,  like  the  men  from  country  dis- 
tricts. But  all  professions  and  trades  recognize  the  fact 
that  their  business  depends  for  its  success  on  the  citv's 
commercial  prosperity. 

But  our  present  representatives  do  not  represent  any 
of  these  important  interests.  No  legislation  ever  affects 
directly  or  exclusively  their  u  deestrick ;"  the  members  of 
the  different  trades  and  professions  live  scattered  through- 
out the  city,  so  that  they  lorm  but  an  insufficient  part  of 
the  constituency  of  any  one  delegate,  and  he  need  care  but 
little  for  their  opinion,  especially  if  there  happen  to  be 
residents  in  the  district  with  more  or  less  conflicting 
interests.  Thus  an  important  interest  may  send  several 
representatives,  because  its  memb.ers  live  together  in  a 
few  districts,  while  other  more  important  interests  may 
not  be  represented,  because  the  men  live  scattered  in 
many  districts ;  this  is  perhaps  one  ol  the  causes  why  the 
pilots  are  able  to  maintain  their  tax  on  the  commerce  of 
the  City  of  New  York. 

Even  questions  that  affect  a  given  locality  do  not  always 
receive  attention  ;  tor  example,  in  the  case  of  a  recent 
attempt  to  remove  a  conceded  nuisance — in  which  I  acted 
as  counsel — our  representatives  took  little  interest,  because 
it  was  soon  discovered  that  the  diverging  wants  of  tenants 
and  property  owners  allowed  them  to  act  only  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  in  concert.  Moreover,  our  city,  as  the  com- 
mercial centre,  will  always  have  certain  interests,  to  a  cer- 


41 

tain  extent,  in  opposition  to  those  of  the  remainder  of  the 
State  ,  the  representatives  of  our  geographical  election  dis- 
tricts do  not  duly  assert  them  ;  witness,  for  example,  the 
fact  that  every  year  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars 
raised  by  taxation  from  this  city  are  spent  for  educational 
purposes  in  other  parts  of  the  State.  The  recent  freedom 
of  the  Erie  Canal  would,  moreover,  never  have  been  gained 
by  our  city  representatives  ;  their  indifference  was  equalled 
only  by  the  hostility  shown  to  the  construction  of  that 
canal  by  the  Tammany  Hall  buck-tail  politician  of  that 
day. 

The  presence  of  these  delegates,  watching  over  the 
business  and  trade  interests  of  the  City  of  New  York, 
will,  therefore,  be  of  benefit  to  all  engaged  in  trade,  busi- 
ness or  professional  life.  There  was  a  deep  meaning  in 
the  words  of  Governor  Cleveland,  on  Evacuation  Dayr 
"Are  you  sure  that  you  have  in  your  legislative  halls  proper 
champions  of  the  cause  of  your  commerce  ?  Are  you 
sure  you  have  the  proper  men  at  Albany  to  guard  your 
precious  interests  ?  .  .  .  You  must  not  forget  that  your 
political  interests  go  hand  in  hand  with  your  commercial 
interests."  Lastly,  the  representation  of  such  organiza- 
tions will  be  of  benefit  to  the  whole  State,  whose  prosper- 
ity is  so  closely  connected  with  that  of  this  city,  not  only 
in  the  national  legislature,  where  our  representatives, 
elected  on  the  same  vicious  principle,  equally  fail  to  pro- 
tect our  commercial  interests,  but  also  in  the  Legislature 
at  Albany,  where  the  representatives  of  the  agricultural 
interests  feel  the  want  of  a  corresponding  representation 
of  our  great  State's  commerce,  to  enable  them  to  decide 
rightly  the  many  complicated  questions  affecting  special 
commercial  interests. 

Our  best  city  representatives  are  young  lawyers,  but 
even  these  bring  with  them,  as  a  rule,  little  or  no  ac- 
quaintance  with   these   wants' of    business   men;    hence 


42 

by  affording  the  Government  reliable  means  of  gaining 
information  on  these  commercial  questions,  which  are 
continually  increasing  in  importance  and  difficulty,  you 
are  rendering  a  service  to  the  whole  State.  Congress 
has  to  appoint  special  committees  which,  at  great  expense, 
travel  through  the  land  and  gather  information,  which 
instructs,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  members  of  that  com- 
mittee ;  but,  with  their  retirement  from  office,  the  work 
has  to  be  repeated. 

Our  State  Legislature,  occasionally,  goes  through  a 
similar  form,  but  its  term  of  office  is  far  too  short  to  thus 
get  any  real  knowledge. 

As  Governor  Seymour  has  rightly  said,  our  country 
has  been  governed  by  the  statesmanship  of  the  plough ; 
however,  not  only  is  this  Government  naturally  inclined 
to  be  also  a  little  too  much  for  the  plough,  but,  for  the 
sake  of  the  farmers  as  well  as  lor  the  city  people,  there 
should  be  a  little  more  statesmanship  of  the  workshop 
and  of  the  desk. 

In  the  words  of  John  Stuart  Mill,  in  his  "  Representa- 
tive Government"  (p.  65) :  "  Each  is  the  only  safe  guard- 
ian of  his  own  rights  and  interests" ;  and  again,  on  page 
170:  "No  class,  not  even  the  most  numerous,  shall  be 
able  to  reduce  all  but  itself  to  political  insignificance." 

Of  course,  the  objection  will  be  raised  that  this  is  only  the 
old  guild-system,  which  has  been  tried  and  found  wanting 
generations  ago.  But,  in  speaking  of  the  guild-system, 
we  should  remember  that  it  had  two  periods :  the  first 
when  all  were  welcome  who  had  necessary  skill,  and 
when  it  built  cities,  subdued  robber  knights,  made  the 
highways  safe  by  land  and  by  sea,  extended  commerce, 
patronized  art,  founded  hospitals,  built  cathedrals : 

"  I  gaze  round  on  the  windows,  pride  of  France, 
Each  the  bright  gift  of  some  mechanic  guild 
Who  loved  their  city,  and  thought  gold  well  spent 
To  make  her  beautiful  with  piety." — LowelPs  "Cathedra*" 


43 

As  Lieber  says,  in  his  "  Political  Ethics"  :  "  Without 
them  [the  guilds]  the  cities  would  never  have  performed 
their  high  service  in  the  promotion  of  civilization  and  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  burghers'  rights.  (II.,  199.) — 
The  second  stage  when,  as  a  close  corporation,  it  enforced 
monopolies,  crushed  trade,  and  was  used  merely  as  an 
instrument  of  gain  by  the  fortunate  families  who  belonged 
to  it — utterly  regardless  of  the  welfare  of  the  rest  of  the 
citizens,  and  of  the  duties  which  were  to  be  rendered  in 
return  for  its  rights.     What  caused  this  change?" 

The  same  event  which  produced  the  same  selfish  and 
narrow  spirit  in  all  other  European  governments,  after 
the  fifteenth  century,  and,  in  fact,  caused  in  all  respects 
the  greatest  injury  to  our  Germanic  civilization.  I  mean 
the  Renaissance. 

That  introduced  the  old  heathen  spirit  of  selfishness ; 
no  power  would  recognize  any  other  in  the  State ;  it 
turned  royalty  into  absolute  monarchy,  feudal  chiefs  into 
petty  sovereigns,  republics  into  close  tyrannical  corpora- 
tions ;  it  abolished  all  organizations  intermediate  between 
the  State  and  the  individuals,  and  left  the  latter  as  power- 
less atoms.  The  rural  republics  of  Switzerland  were  as 
tyrannical  as  the  guilds  of  the  Hanse  Cities ;  from  the 
experience  of  that  age  we  might  as  well  argue  against 
the  agricultural  township,  as  against  the  association  of 
trade,  professional  and  business  men.  The  dislike  against 
the  exclusiveness  of  the  old  guild-system  was  justified; 
but  we  have  let  this  dislike  carry  us  too  far;  we  have 
pulled  down  too  much,  and  must  now  rebuild,  but  not 
with  the  old  defects — the  State  must  be  supreme, 

In  fact,  by  this  plan  as  to  representation,  we  will  have 
approached,  as  nearly  as  we  can,  to  the  ideal  of  Governor 
Seymour :  "  That  government  is  most  wise  which  is  in 
the  hands  of  those  best  informed  about  the  particular 
questions  on  which  they  legislate ;  most  economical  and 


44 

honest  when  controlled  by  those  most  interested  in  pre- 
serving frugality  and  virtue;  most  strong  when  it  only 
exercises  authority  which  is  beneficial  in  its  action  to  the 
governed."  The  helplessness  of  Congress,  in  dealing 
with  such  questions  as  that  of  the  tariff,  is  universally 
acknowledged. 

At  present,  only  our  wishes  as  individuals,  or  as  mem- 
bers of  the  State  at  large,  find  utterance,  such  as  it  is, 
in  our  legislatures,  in  accordance  with  the  theories  of 
Aristotle  and  Rousseau  ;  but  our  wishes,  as  members  of 
organizations,  between  the  State  and  the  individual,  are 
disregarded  ;  though  the  interests  of  these  intermediate 
associations  of  citizens,  gaining  a  livelihood  by  similar 
means,  are  of  the  first  importance  ;  they  deserve  to  rank 
with  the  townships  and  counties,  as  of  equal  birth  with 
the  state  and  national  organizations ;  their  importance  is 
being  recognized  and  insisted  on  by  the  so-called  Profes- 
sorial Socialists  of  Germany.  The  most  oppressive  and 
important  function  of  government,  i.  e.,  taxation,  bears 
upon  men,  directly  or  indirectly,  as  members  of  these 
organizations ;  these  organizations  are  at  present  not 
represented,  and  M  taxation  without  representation  is 
tyranny." 


XII. 


PRACTICAL   BENEFITS   OF    SELF-GOVERNMENT    OF  CITIZENS- 
ORGANIZED  ACCORDING  TO  THEIR  INTERESTS. 

FINALLY,  as  to  allowing  these  associations  a  certain 
amount  of  self-government,  after  the  example  of 
agricultural  townships,  it  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  lay 
down  a  general  plan,  but  each  association  must  be  left  to- 
discover,  by  experience,  to  what  extent  it  is  capable  and 
desirous  of  assuming  such  functions. 


45 

As  to  the  necessity  of  not  leaving  these  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  inhabitants  of  cities  without  some  form  of 
sub-divisions  with  authority,  there  can  be  no  question ; 
the  present  local  divisions  of  ward  or  election  districts 
amount  to  nothing ;  they  do  not  replace  the  "  neighbor- 
hoods "  of  country  ;  the  only  other  possible  organization 
to  whom  power  can  be  entrusted,  seems  to  be  that  of  men 
united  according  to  their  material  interests. 

In  the  words  of  Professor  Gneist,  in  his  above  cited 
article  on  the  government  of  the  City  of  London:  "  Is  it 
possible  to  preserve  the  union  of  the  neighborhood,  where 
during  the  day  and  during  the  night  a  different  popula- 
tion lives?  It  is  natural  that  a  people  who  find  no  longer 
support,  help,  sympathy  in  the  neighborhood,  should 
cling  to  the  associations,  which  once  existed  as  guilds, 
where  the  union  of  the  neighborhood  did  not  exist,  and 
the  important  want  could  not  be  replaced  by  a  periodical 
bringing  together  of  unconnected  masses  of  voters." 

As  Dr.  Vaughan  writes  in  his  "  Age  of  Great  Cities :" 
"  We  are  done  with  feudal  restraints,  but  have  adopted 
no-others"  (p.  283). 

The  great  necessity  is  to  replace  this  neighborhood 
influence ;  men  lose  in  intelligence  and  in  morals  when 
they  live  only  as  individuals  and  atoms ;  that  is  a  life  for 
savages ;  they  have  no  associations. 

It  is  true  that  membership  in  these  associations  to  some 
extent  curtails  our  liberty  and  action ;  but  these  actions 
will,  1  believe,  generally  be  found  to  spring  from  wishes, 
which  it  is  well  to  limit.  On  the  other  hand  the  power  of 
the  individul  is  greatly  increased  through  the  association. 

No  honest  business,  trade  or  professional  man  in  this 
city  but  feels  the  injury  caused  to  his  business  or  good 
name  of  his  profession  by  the  tricks  and  rascality  of  dis- 
honest men  in  the  same  occupation,  and  who  will  not  wish 
that  there  was  some  way  of  punishing  this  dishonesty, 


4* 

other  than  the  expensive,  often  impracticable  resort,  to 
the  State  courts.  Every  trade  or  profession  has  regula- 
tions concerning  the  education  and  control  of  apprentices, 
the  manner  of  doing  work,  etc.,  which  it  would  wish  to  be 
able  to  put  in  force. 

Every  group  of  business  men,  mechanics  or  tradesmen 
acknowledges  an  obligation  to  assist  a  member  of  the  same 
group,  when  disabled  by  age  or  misfortune.  Are  these 
not  the  same  wants  for  whose  satisfaction  the  farmers 
formed  the  much-lauded  township  governments  ? 

The  State  does  not  know  how  to  devise  remedies  for 
these  wants  of  inhabitants  of  cities,  or  how  to  execute  the 
remedies  devised,  any  more  than  a  centralized  govern- 
ment can  properly  build  and  manage  the  necessary  public 
institutions  of  all  the  villages  and  townships  of  the  land. 

All  the  indirect  advantages  which  De  Tocquevilie  and 
subsequent  writers  have  represented  as  coming  to  the 
members  of  the  township,  from  the  habit  of  participating 
in  self-government,  will  certainly  also  flow  from  member- 
ship in  these  associations  of  citizens.  The  inhabitant  of 
the  city  thereby  becomes  a  member  of  the  body  politic ; 
he  has  a  feeling  of  his  strength,  as  a  member  in  good 
standing  of  his  business  organization,  and  at  the  same 
time  he  feels  the  reponsibility  of  participating  in  great 
undertakings.  By  the  periodical  meetings  with  others  of 
his  business,  trade  and  profession,  where  the  best  men  in 
their  respective  lines  are  sure  to  take  the  lead,  he  sees  a 
prize  offered  for  honesty  and  excellence  in  his  work, 
whatever  that  may  be,  and  the  punishment  of  social  ostra- 
cism inflicted  for  the  slightest  breach  of  professional  or 
trade  morals.  By  contact  with  others  leading  a  similar 
life,  mutual  friendships  spring  up  ;  thence  come  confidence 
between  man  and  man,  that  indispensable  medium  tor 
business  of  any  kind,  that  most  important  legal  tender ; 
thence  comes  the  feeling  of  security  that  even  in  adversity 


47 

there  are  friends  on  whom  to  rely  ;  and  last,  but  not  least,, 
comes  a  religious  spirit,  not  a  superstitous  fear  (for  that 
is  the  result  of  helpless  individualism  of  all  savage  or 
civilized  life),  but  the  trustful  love  of  God,  which  follows 
the  love  of  neighbor. 

This  improvement  in  morals  and  religion  can  be  best 
brought  about  in  this  way,  through  the  associations  ;  clubs 
or  churches  for  workingmen,  gotten  up  expressly  by 
churches  or  individuals  will  always  be  looked  upon  as 
charities  and  be  attended  so  long  as  the  material  benefits 
are  forthcoming ;  but  these  artificial  structures  will  not 
last.  Men  of  Germanic  race  require  religion  and  its  ser- 
vices as  soon  as  they  unite  in  associations  ;  the  object  of 
our  clergy  should  be,  in  the  future,  to  work  with  and 
through  those  organizations  ;  they  may  some  day  become 
parishes  ;  each  guild  was  formerly  a  religious  unit. 

And  the  benefits  which  men  as  individuals,  as  members 
of  the  general  public,  derive  from  the  existence  of  these 
organizations,  are  as  important  as  those  of  the  members 
themselves.  Every  business  and  trade  will  only  be  too 
ready  to  discover  and  punish  by  expulsion  from  the  trade 
or  otherwise,  all  frauds  or  cheats ;  and  thereby  the  public 
will  be  protected  and  the  expense  of  many — generally 
unsatisfactory — lawsuits  avoided,  in  the  same  way  as,  in 
the  country,  the  opinion  of  the  neighbors  is  the  chief  check 
on  evil-minded  persons. 

By  the  benevolent  mutual  insurance  system,  which 
always  comes  sooner  or  later,  the  expense  of  supporting 
many  aged  and  infirm  persons  will  be  taken  from  the  State. 
Davis,  in  his  standard  English  work  on  the  Law  of  Friendly 
Societies,  has  remarked  that  trades-unions,  by  their  benev. 
olent  institutions,  perform  many  of  the  duties  of  the  old 
parish,  in  helping  those  who  are  in  want ;  they  can  man- 
age a  superannuation  fund  especially  well,  because  they 
know  when  a  man  really  cannot  work ;  and  also  because 


4cS 

many  men  entitled  to  "  benefit "  do  not  claim  it,  out  of 
proper  pride. 

The  good  results  to  the  public  from  the  improvement 
in  morals,  by  the  saving  of  police-courts  of  justice  and 
prisons,  are  obvious,  and  the  sweeping  penalties  of  the 
Penal  Code — the  only  remedy  of  liberalism — will  be  done 
away  with ;  but,  especially  important  is  the  protection 
which  these  associations,  by  satisfying  man's  legitimate 
appetite  for  spmpathy  and  co-operation,  give  society 
against  the  designs  of  communistic  dreamers,  whose  influ- 
ence is  the  result  of  our  so-called  liberal  theories  of  indi- 
vidualism, cut-throat  competition,  and  helium  omnium,  con- 
tra omnes.  The  Germanic  workingman,  like  the  farmer, 
has  the  desire  for  associations,  and  when  these  are  denied 
to  him,  by  antiquated  conspiracy  laws — the  highest  prod- 
ucts of  the  wisdom  of  the  Manchester  school — any  dema- 
gogue can  move  him  by  striking  this  note,  and  depicting 
to  him  in  glowing  colors  the  pleasures  to  be  gained  from 
this  forbidden  fruit.  In  these  organizations  of  working- 
men,  according  to  trades,  the  steady,  able  craftsman  has 
their  confidence  ;  the  workingmen  are  as  ready  as  the 
property-owners  to  exclude  tramps  and  loafers  from  the 
franchise ;  they  echo  the  words  of  Lieber  :  "  We  seek 
for  a  criterion  which  will  enable  us  to  distinguish  those 
who  have  a  fair  stake  in  the  welfare  of  the  State  from  those 
who  have  not."  They  know  too  well  how  any  socialistic 
talk  makes  capital  take  wings,  and  that  the  management 
of  large  concerns  is  not  a  sinecure,  which  any  one  could 
fill. 

The  socialistic  leaders  in  this  city  know  well  that  their 
only  chance  is  in  breaking  down  the  separate  trade-organ- 
izations and  in  getting  the  workingmen  together  in  organ- 
ized masses,  where  the  demagogues'  tongues  can  have 
full  swing.  As  the  greatest  German  political  economist, 
Roscher,  says :      "  They  (workingmcn's  associations]  can 


49 

in  peaceful  contention  with  organizations  of  their  respect- 
ive employers  satisfy  one  of  the  chief  wants  of  our  cen- 
tralizing-atomizing  times,  namely,  the  restoration  of  strong 
active  organizations  between  the  State  and  the  individual." 

Not  less  important  is  the  protection  which  the  Republic 
will  get  from  these  organizations  of  trade  and  business 
men  against  the  designs  of  ambitious  political  bosses. 

In  the  words  of  Lieber  :  •*  This  uninstitutional  multitude  ■ 
has  no  organization ;  it  is,  as  I  have  stated,  necessarily  led 
by  a  few  or  one,  and  thus  we  meet  in  history  with  the 
invariable  result,  that  virtually  one  man  rules  where 
.absolute  power  of  the  people  is  believed  to  exist ;"  and 
'"  Longevity  [of  nations]  together  with  progressive  liberty 
is  obtained  only  by  institutional  liberty."  (361).  Presi- 
dent Woolsey,  writing  on  the  same  subject,  says  :  "  A 
country  without  them  is  like  a  land  without  mountains  ; 
it  is  these  that  awaken  a  perpetual  joy  in  the  soul.  But 
despotism  generally  dislikes  institutions,  because  they  have 
an  independent  existence,  and  thus  resist  arbitrary  will." 
(p.  365.)  To  quote  again  Governor  Seymour's  article  ; 
"  The  theory  of  self-government  is  not  founded  upon  the 
idea  that  the  people  are  necessarily  virtuous  and  intelli- 
gent, but  it  attempts  to  distribute  each  particular  power 
to  those  who  have  the  greatest  interest  in  its  wise  and  faith- 
ful exercise." 

We  see,  therefore,  that  not  only  will  the  members  of 
these  associations,  as  such,  derive  benefit  from  our  endow- 
ing these  organizations  with  certain  functions  of  self-gov- 
ernment, but  all  citizens,  as  members  of  the  State  at  large, 
and  the  State  itself  will  be  benefited  thereby.  As  Lieber 
says  in  his  work  "  On  Civil  Liberty  " :  "  Strike  out  from 
England  or  America  this  feature  and  principle  [all  pervad 
ing  associative  spirit]  and  they  are  no  longer  the  same 
self-relying,  energetic,  indomitable,  active  people.  The 
spirit  of  self-government  would  be  gone"  (p.  126). 


5o 


XIII. 

SIGNS  OF  THE  TIMES. 

1DO  not  pretend  that  this  is  the  key  to  any  Utopia,  but 
only  that  it  is  a  remedy,  and,  I  believe,  the  only  remedy 
for  many  evils  which  inhabitants  of  cities  now  suffer,  and 
which  are  steadily  on  the  increase  ;  this  plan,  like  any 
other,  will  have  some  evil  consequences  ;  liberty  without 
the  possibility  ol  mistake  and  wrong  is  impossible.  In 
the  words  of  Hamilton  ;  "  It  (the  argument)  goes  to  prove 
that  no  powers  should  be  entrusted  to  any  body  ol  men, 
because  they  may  be  abused"  (II.  Ell.  Deb.,  p.  267).  Our 
citizens  have  long  recognized  intuitively  that  in  these 
organizations  of  men  with  common  interests  lay  their  only 
chance  of  political  salvation,  and  these  associations  have 
been  taking  upon  themselves  more  and  more  duties  and 
powers  of  self-government,  and  have  been  every  year 
taking  a  more  direct  interest  in  legislation. 

Any  one  can  observe  these  signs  of  the  times  in  the 
daily  newspapers.  The  following  three  are  a  lew  of  the 
many  notices  I  have  found  within  the  last  two  weeks, 
indicating  decided  advance  in  the  direction  advocated  by 
this  essay : 

TO  WATCH  LEGISLATIVE  WORK. 

"  At  a  meeting  of  the  representatives  of  various  com- 
mercial bodies,  yesterday,  at  the  Maritime  Exchange,  a 
permanent  organization  was  effected  under  the  title  of 
The  Association  of  New  York  Exchanges  on  Legislation. 
The  purpose  of  the  association  is  "  to  promote  such  legis- 


5i 

lation  or  measures  as  are  iavored,  and  to  oppose  such  as 
are  disapproved,  by  the  exchanges  or  commercial  bodies 
embraced  in  this  association."  The  officers  were  elected 
as  follows :  President,  Robert  B.  Van  Vleck ;  First  Vice- 
President,  George  E.  Moore ;  Second  Vice-President, 
John  E.  Henry  ;  Third  Vice-President,  Charles  C.  Lath- 
rop ;  Secretary,  James  De  Mandeville ;  Treasurer.  J.  H. 
Seymour.  An  Executive  Committee  of  one  from  each 
Exchange  was  elected.  The  association  then  adjourned 
for  one  week." 

AT  THE  LAST   MEETING  OF  THE   CHAMBER  OF   COMMERCE 

Mr.  William  D.  Marvel,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  to 
which  was  referred  the  subject  of  a  commercial  treaty 
with  Spain,  reported  in  favor  of  requesting  President 
Arthur  to  appoint  a  commission  to  meet  with  the  Spanish 
Minister  and  arrange  for  a  commercial  treaty  ;  the  com- 
mission to  consist  of  one  member  appointed  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  President,  one  representing  the  Senate, 
one  the  House  of  Representatives,  one  the  Chamber  of 
Commerce,  and  one  member  as  the  representative  of  the 
Maritime  Association  of  this  city. 

PREPARING  A  BUILDING  LAW. 

The  difference  between  the  architects  and  builders  on 
the  one  side  and  Inspector  W.  P.  Esterbrook,  the  Mechan- 
ics and  Traders'  Exchange,  and  the  Iron  Founders'  Asso- 
ciation on  the  other  side,  last  winter,  which  operated  in 
the  practical  defeat  of  the  proposed  building  law,  intro- 
duced into  the  Senate  by  Senator  Browning,  on  February 
12,  have  apparently  been  harmonized  this  season.  Mr. 
Esterbrook  extended  an  invitation  recently  to  gentlemen 
representing  the  New  York  Chapter  of  the  American 
Institute  of  Architects,  the  Architectural  Iron  Manuiact- 


52 

urers'  Society,  the  Mechanics  and  Traders'  Exchange,  and 
the  Real  Estate  Owners  and  Builders'  Association  to  meet 
him  and  prepare  a  new  bill,  which  all  could  unite  in  sup- 
porting. In  pursuance  to  the  invitation,  a  meeting  was 
held  in  the  Ashland  House,  last  Tuesday  evening,  and 
a  joint  committee  from  the  various  organizations  was 
appointed.  It  met  at  the  Ashland  House  last  evening 
and  began  the  work  of  revision.  The  defeated  bill  was 
taken  up  and  its  sections  discussed  and  remodeled.  This 
work  will  not  be  completed  for  several  weeks,  but  it  is  not 
expected  that  any  great  alterations  will  be  made  in  it. 

The  new  Real  Estate  Exchange,  consisting  of  leading 
brokers  and  large  real  estate  dealers  in  this  city,  accord- 
ing to  an  interview  published  in  to-day's  Real  Estate 
Record,  intends  to  take  an  active  part  in  securing  legisla- 
tion necessary  for  the  interests  of  property  owners  in  this 
city,  and  especially  with  regard  to  reform  in  the  law  of 
land  transfers ;  the  Record  insists  that  governments  do  not 
do  it. 

And  here  I  would  remark  that  what  I  have  stated  with 
reference  to  organizations  of  men,  with  common  business, 
trade  or  professional  interests  applies  equally  to  organi- 
zations of  property  owners.  They,  too,  have  interests  to 
be  represented  and  are  entitled  to  self-government,  for  the 
protection  of  their  special  interests ;  they  would  continue 
to  be  organized  according  to  geographical  districts.  Their 
interests  do  not  coincide  with  their  tenants,  as  was  shown 
in  the  instance  which  I  have  above  cited,  of  an  attempt 
to  remove  a  railroad  nuisance  from  the  West  Side  of  this 
city  ;  both  tenants  and  property  owners  worked  together 
at  first,  so  as  to  have  the  nuisance  diminished,  but  the 
tenants  soen  recognized  that,  if  the  nuisance  were 
removed,  the  character  of  the  neighborhood  would  be 
changed,  the  property  would  become  more  valuable  and 
they  would  be  forced  to  move,  hence  they  lost  interest  and 


53 

practically  did  not  object  to  the  lukewarmness  of  their 
representatives  in  the  matter. 

This  is  an  example  of  the  present  helplessness  of  prop- 
erty owners  against  illegal  acts,  if  so  great  as  to  affect 
the  character  of  the  neighborhood, 

Politicians  are  recognizing  this  coming  power ;  there  is 
no  shrewder  man  among  them  than  Gen.  James  Husted, 
and  this  is  a  specimen  of  the  sentiments  which  he  has 
recently  repeatedly  uttered : 

"  Mr.  Hooley  is  the  President  of  the  Working  Men's 
Assembly,  which  will  meet  in  this  city  in  a  few  days.  His 
indorsement  of  the  bill  is  sufficient  for  me,"  said  Mr. 
Husted,  "and  I  follow  where  he  leads."  There  was  no 
further  opposition,  and  the  bill  was  ordered  to  have  its 
third  reading  to-morrow.  The  Commission  is  required  to 
bring  in  a  bill  in  support  of  whatever  conclusion  it 
reaches.  The  five  Commissioners  will  be  paid  $10  a 
day.  " 

The  Utica  Assembly  of  Trades  last  year  nominated  and 
elected  an  Assemblyman. 

In  fact,  everything  shows  that  the  same  thing  is  going 
to  happen,  which  has  always  happened  where  men  of 
Germanic  race  have  been  allowed  to  form  their  own  gov- 
ernments ;  that  they  will  not  be  satisfied  to  exist  as  disor- 
ganized masses,  but  will  unite  in  defence  of  their  interests. 


54 


XIV. 

PRACTICAL    SUGGESTIONS. 

NO  legislation  is  needed,  at  least  for  the  present ;  a  too 
hasty  recognition  of  the  public  rights  and  duties  of 
these  organizations  might  lead  to  as  unfortunate  conse- 
quences as  the  present  system.  The  organizations  are 
forming  themselves  and  assuming  new  duties  rapidly; 
although  citizens  might  be  encouraged  to  join  themselves 
to  these  associations,  if  they  received  some  legal  recog- 
nition, such  as  some  slight  power  to  prevent  dishonesty, 
in  their  various  callings. 

What  we  should  do  now  is  this:  This  coming  change 
in  our  form  of  government  should  be  recognized,  its  causes 
studied,  its  progress  foreseen,  so  that  the  transition  to  the 
new  state  ol  things  may  be  as  easy  and  tranquil  as  possible. 
The  great  danger  is  that  some  strong  interest  or  group  of 
interests  will  endeavor  to  gain  for  themselves  the  right  of 
representation  and  self-government  to  the  exclusion  of 
other  groups,  with  equal  rights  to  these  privileges;  for 
example,  by  the  plan  of  confining  the  ballot  to  real  estate 
owners.  That  has  been  the  trouble  heretofore  with  Ger- 
manic cities,  that  one  group  would  try  to  assert  itself  to 
the  exclusion  of  others. 

The  same  problem  was  solved  by  the  authors  of  our 
Constitution,  by  the  institution  ot  two  chambers,  in  one 
of  which  all  interests  should  be  equally  represented,  as 
such,  and  in  the  other  the  inhabitants  should  be  repre- 
sented according  to  numbers.  The  conflicting  interests 
of  organizations  of  farmers  living  in  very  different  climates, 
fully  as  various  as  the  trades  in  our  cities,  were  thereby 


55 

harmonized,  and  the  plan  worked  well,  even  after  the 
injurious  influences  of  representatives,  elected  from  our 
city  geographical  election  districts,  made  themselves  felt; 
and  on  this  model,  I  believe,  an  Alliance  of  Business, 
Trade,  Professional  and  Property-Owners'  Associations  of 
the  City  of  New  York  might  be  formed,  which  would 
secure  us  self-government  and  real  representation,  at  first 
perhaps  indirectly,  by  exercising  a  pressure  upon  the 
potitical  parties,  by  endorsing  or  rejecting  nominations, 
but  before  long  by  making  nominations,  and  finally  by 
becoming  themselves  the  political  units,  in  place  of  the 
present  geographical  election  district,  which  is  unscientific 
in  theory,  unjustified  by  history  and  condemned  by 
experience. 

A  constitution  in  outline,  for  such  an  Alliance,  is 
hereto  annexed.  Citizens,  all  over  the  city,  would  vote 
for  the  nominees  of  this  association,  and  thus  we  would 
begin  by  carrying  out  practically  Mr.  Hare's  plan,  so 
warmly  endorsed  by  Mr.  Mill  in  his  "  Representative 
Government,"  with  the  exception  that  we  would  have 
added  the  indispensable  nominating  committee,  in  which 
the  interests  of  all  citizens  might  be  represented.  And, 
in  conclusion,  I  would  venture  to  suggest  that  an  associa- 
tion of  men  interested  in  this  question  might  at  once  be 
formed  to  study  this  movement  in  all  its  bearings  in  the 
past  and  in  the  present,  to  collect  facts  showing  the 
tendencies  of  the  movement  in  different  localities,  and  to 
oppose  the  attempts  of  the  professional  politicians  to  gain 
control  of  the  associations,  and  use  them  for  selfish  pur- 
poses, especially  by  antagonizing  them,  and  to  diffuse 
among  the  members  of  these  organizations  an  appre- 
ciation of  their  great  usefulness  and  of  their  important 
future. 

By  thus  helping  to  organize  the  great  masses  in  our 
cities,  and   giving  them  representation  and  self-govern- 


56 

ment,  we  would  be  carrying  out  the  true  principles  of 
our  Germanic  Constitution,  and  doing  our  share  towards 
hastening  the  fulfilment  of  Hamilton's  prophecy : 

"  The  time  may  ere  long  arrive  when  the  minds  of  men 
will  be  prepared  to  make  an  effort  to  recover  the  Con- 
stitution." 

The  need  of  the  hour  is  a  new  federalism. 


57 


CONSTITUTION   OF  THE  ALLIANCE 


Trade,  Professional  and  Property-Owners'  Organizations 


NEW     YORK.     CITY. 


Section  i. 

The  object  of  this  Alliance  is  to  promote  the  interests 
of  the  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  New  York,  by  securing 
for  them  the  rights  of  representation  and  self-govern- 
ment. 

Section  2. 

The  Alliance  shall  consist  of  delegates  from  each  of  the 
associations,  which  shall  sign  this  constitution,  or  which 
shall  afterwards  be  admitted  to  this  Alliance. 

Section  3. 

Each  of  said  associations  shall  appoint  three  delegates; 
this  appointment  shall  be  made  before  the  close  of  the 
year,  for  the  ensuing  year ;  such  appointment  shall  be 
witnessed  by  a  certificate,  signed  by  the  secretary  and 
sealed  with  the  seal  of  the  association. 

Section  4. 

The  officers  of  this  Alliance  shall  be  a  President,  two 
Vice-Presidents,  a  Secretary  and  a  Treasurer,  who  shall 


58 

be  elected  at  the  first  regular  meeting  of  the  Alliance, 
and  hereafter  at  the  last  regular  meeting  of  each  year, 
and  shall  hold  office  for  one  year,  and  perform  the  usual 
duties  of  their  respective  offices ;  no  two  of  said  officers 
shall  be  members  of  the  same  association,  but  this  latter 
rule  shall  not  apply  to  the  secretary. 

Section  5. 

The  following  committees  and  all  others,  authorized  by 
the  by-laws,  shall  be  appointed  by  the  president ;  and  each 
committee  shall  consist  of  three  members,  except  the  Exec- 
utive Committee,  which  shall  consist  of  one  member  from 
each  of  the  associations. 

Section  6. 

The  Committee  on  National  Legislation,  the  Committee 
on  State  Legislation  and  the  Committe  on  Municipal 
Legislation  shall  keep  themselves  informed  concerning 
legislation,  in  the  national,  state  or  municipal  legislative 
bodies  respectively,  and  shall  also  keep  a  record  of  votes  * 
by  the  members  of  those  bodies  on  matters  of  importance 
to  this  Alliance. 

Section  7.        .         . 

The  Committee  on  Business  Organizations  shall  keep 
itself  informed  concerning  business  organizations,  not 
members  of  this  Alliance,  and  shall  seek  to  gain  their  co- 
operation, and  to  diffuse  among  their  members  an  appre- 
ciation of  the  benefits  to  be  derived  by  self-government 
and  representation  of  such  organizations. 

Section  8. 

The  Committee  on  Arbitration  shall  act  as  arbitrators  in 
disputes  between  associations  who  are  members  of  this 
Alliance  (if  any  should  arise),  and  the  members  of  said 
committee  shall  also  act  as  arbitrators  in  disputes  between 


59 

members  of  different  associations,  and  may  also  accept 
such  compensation  as  may  be  agreed  upon  by  all  parties 
for  such  services. 

Section  9. 

The  Committee  on  Legislation  shall  consider  all  pro- 
posals for  amendment  of  the  law. 

Section  10. 

The  Committee  on  Nominations  shall  consider  nomina- 
tions for  public  offices,  made  by  political  parties,  and  shall 
recommend  to  the  Alliance  the  endorsement  or  rejection 
of  such  nominations,  or  shall  suggest  that  nominations  be 
made  by  the  Alliance. 

Section  ii. 

The  Committee  on  Grievances  shall  conduct  such  liti- 
gation as  may  be  directed  by  the  Alliance;  but  no  suit 
shall  be  begun  except  when  authorized  by  three-fourths 
•of  the  associations. 

Section  12. 

The  Committee  on  Self-Government  shall  keep  itself 
informed  concerning  the  relations  of  the  various  associa- 
tions to  their  members,  and,  when  appealed  to,  shall 
recommend  such  action  as  shall  seem  conducive  to  the 
best  interests  of  all  parties. 

Section  13. 

The  Committee  on  Membership  shall  consider  all  appli 
cations  for  membership  from  other  associations. 

Section  14. 
The  annual  dues  of  each  association  shall  be 


dollars,    to  be  paid  in  the    month    of    January ;  further 
expense  shall  be  borne  equally  by  the  associations,  but 


6o 

none  shall  be  authorized  except  by  a  vote  of  three-fourths 
of  the  associations. 

Section  15. 

Each  delegate  shall  be  entitled  to  one  vote,  and  plurality 
of  votes  shall  decide  all  questions,  except  where  the  con- 
stitution requires  a  vote  of  associations;  in  such  cases 
each  association,  represented  at  the  meeting,  shall  have 
one  vote,  to  be  cast  by  a  majority  of  its  delegates :  if  only 
two  delegates  of  any  association  are  present  and  cannot 
agree,  the  vote  of  that  association  shall  not  be  counted: 
and  if  only  one  delegate  is  present,  he  can  vote  for  the 
association. 

Section  16. 

New  associations  may  be  admitted,  and  the  constitu- 
tion may  be  amended  by  a  vote  ot  three-fourths  of  the 
associations ;  but  any  member,  proposing  such  admission 
or  amendment,  shall  give  notice  thereof  to  the  secretary, 
at  least  one  week  before  the  monthly  meeting,  and  the 
secretary  shall  immediately  give  notice  thereof  to  the 
members  of  the  Alliance,  in  the  manner  provided  for 
calling  special  meetings. 


6i 


Federalism  and  the  Social  Contract  Theory. 


THE  characteristic  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  Fed- 
eralism and  distinguishes  it  in  all  times  from  other 
systems  of  government  is  the  belief  in  the  existence  of 
absolute  principles  of  right  and  wrong,  which  were  cre- 
ated by  God  and  which  exist  independently  of  the  human 
reason. 

By  the  desire  to  realize  these  higher  ideas,  men  are  led 
to  form  governments ;  as  the  Federalist  says,  on  page  364 
(Dawson's  Ed.) :  "  Justice  is  the  end  of  government.  It  is 
the  end  of  all  civil  society." 

Moreover,  believing  that  human  reason  may  not  always 
recognize  these  great  truths,  and  in  order  to  hand  them 
down  to  posterity,  Federalism  imbeds  them  in  constitu- 
tions beyond  the  reach  of  the  transient  whims  of  a  bare 
majority  of  the  multitude. 

Thus  the  preamble  of  our  Constitution  reads :  "  We, 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form  a  more 
perfect  union,  establish  justice  .  .  .  and  secure  the 
blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do 
ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution  for  the  United 
States  of  America." 

To  quote  again  from  the  Federalist  (p.  498) :  "  It  (the 
republican  principle)  does  not  require  an  unqualified 
complaisance  to   every  sudden  breeze  of  passion,  or  to 


62 

every  transient  impulse  which  the  people  may  receive 
from  the  arts  of  men,  who  flatter  their  prejudices  to 
betray  their  interests." 

On  the  other  hand,  Federalism  does  not  place  the  indi- 
vidual helpless  in  the  hands  of  an  almighty  government, 
but  maintains  numerous  organizations  between  the  indi- 
vidual and  the  State.  Thus  the  Federalist  says  (p.  56) : 
"  From  this  view  of  the  subject,  it  may  be  concluded,  that 
a  pure  democracy,  by  which  I  mean  a  society  consisting 
of  a  small  number  of  citizens,  who  assemble  and  adminis- 
ter the  government  in  person,  can  admit  of  no  cure  for 
the  mischiefs  of  faction  ;''  and  again,  on  p.  235  :  "The  Fed- 
eral and  State  governments  are  in  fact  but  different 
agents  and  trustees  of  the  people,  constituted  with  differ- 
ent powers  and  designated  for  different  purposes."  Our 
towns,  counties  and  states  were  unions  of  agriculturists, 
each  of  which  managed  its  own  affairs,  and  whose  repre- 
sentatives met  together  to  reconcile  their  conflicting  inter- 
ests and  protect  themselves  from  others. 

In  political  economy,  Federalism  is,  in  the  first  place, 
opposed  to  Communism.  In  the  words  of  the  Federalist: 
"  The  diversity  in  the  faculties  of  men,  from  which  the 
rights  of  property  originate,  is  not  less  an  insuperable 
obstacle  to  a  uniformity  of  interests.  The  protection  of 
these  faculties  is  the  first  object  of  government.  From 
the  protection  of  different  and  unequal  faculties  of  ac- 
quiring property,  the  possession  of  different  degrees  and 
kinds  of  property  immediately  results ;  and  from  the  in- 
fluence of  these  on  the  sentiments  and  views  of  the  respect- 
ive proprietors  ensues  a  division  of  the  society  into  dif- 
ferent interests  and  parties.  The  latent  causes  of  faction 
are  thus  sown  in  the  nature  of  man."  (p.  57.)  "  Among 
the  numerous  advantages  promised  by  a  well-constructed 
union,  none  deserves  to  be  more  accurately  developed 
than  its  tendency  to  break  and  control  the  violence  of 
faction"  (p.  55). 


On  the  other  hand  the  Federalist  recognizes  the  right 
of  every  trade  and  occupation  to  maintain  its  separate 
interests;  thus  Letter  58  reads:  "A  landed  interest,  a 
manufacturing  interest,  a  mercantile  interest,  with  many 
lesser  interests  grow  up  of  necessity  in  civilized  nations. 
The  regulation  of  these  forms  the  principal  task  of  mod- 
ern legislation."  The  whole  spirit  of  Federalism  is 
opposed  to  permitting  one  class  to  oppress  another  at  the 
expense  of  the  physical  and  moral  health  of  the  latter. 
The  founders  of  our  government  conceived  its  scope  to 
extend  beyond  the  exercise  of  a  mere  police  power;  the 
Constitution  declares  one  of  its  objects  to  be  "  to  promote 
the  general  welfare."  Our  population  at  that  time  was 
an  agricultural  one,  and  consequently  the  necessity  for 
laws  regulating  the  treatment  of  employees  by  employers 
were  as  little  known  as  they  are  at  present,  for  employees 
in  our  agricultural  districts  or  for  our  household  servants; 
but  the  apprenticeship  and  usury  laws,  and  the  provisions 
for  building  roads  and  public  education,  indicate  that  the 
Fathers  placed  no  narrow  bounds  upon  their  idea  of  the 
duties  of  a  State,  or  of  the  minor  organizations. 

Law,  they  held,  is  not  confined  to  keeping  the  peace 
between  individuals,  or  merely  compelling  them  to 
fulfill  contracts,  but  justifies  the  prohibition  of  any  act 
which  interferes  with  any  of  the  greater  or  smaller 
organizations  attaining  the  objects  of  their  existence. 

What  theory  in  politics,  political  economy  and  law 
has  been  the  great  opponent  of  the  doctrines  of  Feder- 
alism, as  above  set  forth  ? 

Luther  Martin  in  his  report  to  the  Maryland  Legis- 
lature (I.Elliott's  Debates,  p.  351),  concerning  the  pro- 
ceedings in  the  convention  which  framed  the  United 
States  Constitution,  states:  "They  (the  opponents  of 
the  United  States  Constitution)  urged  that  all  men  con- 
sidered  in  a  state   of  nature,  before  any  government  is 


64 

formed,  are  equally  free  and  independent,  no  one  having 
any  right  or  authority  to  exercise  power  over  another, 
and  this  without  any  regard  to  difference  in  personal 
strength,  understanding  or  wealth,  and  that  when  such 
individuals  enter  into  government,  they  have  each  a 
right  to  an  equal  vote  in  every  matter  which  relates  to 
their  government." 

This  language  is  that  of  the  adherents  of  the  social 
contract  theory,  which  has  continued  to  be  the  opponent 
of  Federalism  to  the  present  day,  and  the  object  of  this 
paper  is  to  show  the  history  of  this  political  doctrine, 
together  with  a  brief  reference  to  its  effects  on  political 
economy  and  law. 

This  theory,  to  state  it  briefly,  is  as  follows :  It  assumes 
that  men  lived  originally  in  a  state  of  nature  without 
laws  or  government,  but  that  for  various  reasons  thev 
found  this  unendurable,  and  consequently,  guided  by 
their  reason,  they  met  and  resolved  to  live  in  social  rela- 
tions and  form  a  State,  submitting  themselves  to  an 
individual,  or  to  a  number  of  individuals,  who  hereby 
became  their  rulers. 

The  agreement  to  live  in  a  State  is  called  pactum 
unionis ;  the  agreement  to  form  a  government  is  called 
pactum  constitutionis ;  and  the  agreement  between 
governors  and  governed  is  called  pactum  subjectionis. 
Of  course  no  place  is  found  for  organizations  intermediate 
between  the  State  and  the  individuals.  These  are  prob- 
ably the  only  points  on  which  all  the  various  supporters 
of  this  theory  agree.  The  influence  of  this  theory  was 
so  widespread,  that  a  reference  to  most  of  the  prominent 
political  writers   will  be  necessary. 


65 


I. 


But,  before  we  go  further  into  the  history  of  its  devel- 
opment, a  short  account  should  be  given  of  the  theories 
and  causes  which,  apparently,  led  up  to  the  adoption  of 
this  theory.  Among  the  Greeks,  the  necessity  of  any 
explanation  of  the  unlimited  power  of  the  Government 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  felt.  Ulysses,  when  he 
chastises  Thyrsites,  that  prototype  of  democratic  dema- 
gogues, gives  no  explanation  of  why  Agamemnon  was 
entitled  to  such  a  large  share  of  the  spoil,  and  so  many 
beautiful  women,  beyond  the  heavy  weight  of  his  staff. 
And,  in  later  times,  when  the  governments  had  become 
republics,  there  was  no  question  but  that  the  Govern- 
ment might  do  what  it  pleased.  Thus,  in  the  trial  of 
the  naval  commanders,  after  the  battle  of  Arginusas,  the 
law  of  procedure,  which  allowed  only  one  man  to  be  tried 
at  a  time,  was  changed,  and  the  commanders  were  all 
tried  at  once ;  for,  said  the  popular  orators,  if  we,  the 
people,  decide  on  their  fate,  can  we  not  also  say  how  we 
will  do  it? 

In  the  same  spirit,  Plato,  in  his  republic,  sacrifices  the 
individual  entirely  to  the  State.  He  sacrifices  the  well- 
being  of  the  individual;  he  seeks  only  a  successful  and 
splendid  State,  in  which  an  individual  must  find  his 
satisfaction  in  knowing  that  he  belongs  to  it.  Thus,  he 
denies  to  the  ruling  class  all  private  property ;  even  their 
wives  must  be  in  common,  so  that  no  interests,  other  than 
the  common  welfare,  may  distract  their  attention;  and, 
as  to  the  condition  of  the  lower  class,  consisting  of  the 
laborers,  artisans,  etc.,  nothing  is  said  of  their  having  any 
rights,  or  deserving  any  consideration. 

Aristotle,  whose  ideas  were  intended  more  for  real 
life,  considered  man  as  an  animal,  destined  by  nature  to 


66 

form  a  State.  The  object  of  the  State  is  to  live  well;  it 
may  be  in  the  form  of  monarchy,  aristocracy  or  democ- 
racy, whichever  is  best  suited  to  a  city's  particular  cir- 
cumstances. But,  like  Plato,  he  considers  the  individual 
as  completely  subordinate  to  the  State,  and  does  not  con- 
sider that  any  question  can  be  raised  as  to  the  origin  or 
propriety  of  this  relation. 

The  explanation  of  this  may  lie  in  the  fact  that  the 
Greeks  were  then  for  the  first  time  experiencing  the 
advantages  derived  from  city  life,  in  which,  necessarily, 
the  central  authority  must  be  very  great;  their  idea  of  a 
State  was  the  city ;  the  will  of  the  citizens,  who  could 
meet  easily,  was  naturally  the  supreme  law ;  all  the  great- 
est goods  seem  to  be  gained  only  by  this  close  cohesion 
of  men  and  subordination  of  one  to  all ;  hence  all  smalL 
unions,  such  as  trade-guilds  and  even  families,  were  dis- 
regarded, and  the  immoderate  extension  of  the  principle 
of  absolute  government  seems  to  have  been  one  of  the 
principal  causes  of  the  unsteadiness  and  final  downfall  of 
these  cities  and  states. 

Their  philosophy  had  destroyed  their  old  religious  be- 
liefs, but  they  had  substituted  no  new  system  to  carry  up 
man's  thoughts  to  God  ;  they  made  man  the  centre  of  the 
universe  and  his  reason  or  will  his  all-sufficient  guide. 

The  Romans,  as  little  as  the  Greeks,  felt  the  need  of 
any  theory  to  account  for  the  existence  of  the  State. 
Their  absolute  public  authority,  which  seems  to  resemble 
most  nearly  the  strong  power  possessed  by  a  robber  chief- 
tain over  his  band,  was  never  decreased  even  when  the 
conquest  of  the  world  had  made  it  unnecessary.  The  only 
remedy  they  could  think  of  was  to  increase  the  number 
of  men  who  wielded  this  absolute  power  ;  thus  two  con- 
suls were  appointed  in  place  of  one  king  ;  and  again  later,, 
two  tribunes  were  installed  to  check  the  two  consuls. 

The  Romans  also  copied  all  their  theoretical  ideas  from 


6; 

the  Greeks ;  hence  they  repeated  the  teachings  of  the  en- 
tire absorption  of  the  individual  into  the  State  ;  although 
they  were  unconscious  of  the  fact  that  the  independence 
of  the  pater-familias  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  private 
law  was  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  Greek  spirit. 

The  Greek  idea  of  the  State,  as  a  city,  was  also  unfor- 
tunate for  the  Romans,  as  it  prevented  the  adoption  of 
any  theory  suitable  to  its  world-wide  government,  which 
continned  till  the  time  of  the  absolute  empire  to  be  that 
of  a  city,  governing  a  surrounding  country  ;  thus  a  civis 
romanus  could  exercise  his  privileges  only  in  the  City  of 
Rome,  etc. 

To  Christianity  is  due  the  elevation  of  the  individual 
from  being  merely  an  instrument  of  the  State ;  the  high 
value  set  upon  every  man  as  possessing  an  immortal  soul, 
raised  the  humblest  individual  above  the  greatest  pro- 
ductions of  this  world. 

St.  Augustine  thus  considers  the  State  only  as  a  neces- 
sary evil,  the  work  of  the  children  of  this  world,  with 
which  it  is  better  to  have  no  more  to  do  than  is  necessary. 
The  real  State  is  supernatual ;  it  is  the  union  of  all  true 
believers  in  the  Church,  and  the  earthly  governments 
should  serve  only  the  ends  of  the  Church,  since  they,  like 
everything  else,  are  the  direct  productions  of  the  Lord. 

Charlemagne  and  the  succeeding  emperors  were  con- 
sidered as  having  the  mission  of  realizing  the  heavenly 
kingdom  so  far  as  possible  on  this  earth ;  hence  their 
authority  was  deemed  to  be  derived  directly  from  God. 
The  cry  of  "  Deus  vult "  was  the  expression  of  an  opinion 
on  earthly  matters  not  confined  to  the  Crusades,  but 
applicable  to  political  institutions  in  general. 

Dante  is  the  chief  writer  of  this  period,  and  his  Latin 
political  writings  are  full  of  yearnings  for  unity  under  the 
German  Emperor,  who  derived  his  authority  through  the 
Pope,  from  God ;  but  the  question  of  the  origin  of  gov- 


68 

eminent  is  not  raised  ;  Aristotle,  the  "  philosophus,"  said 
nothing  about  it,  and  that  was  enough. 

Later  writers  followed  in  the  same  direction,  bound  by 
the  authority  of  Aristotle  and  Thomas  Aquinas  ;  the  for- 
mer in  worldly,  the  latter  in  spiritual  matters,  being  the 
sufficient  authority. 

It  was  not  until  the  sudden  influx  of  new  ideas  into 
Western  Europe,  which  followed  the  fall  of  Constanti- 
nople, had  overturned  the  established  ideas  of  the  rela- 
tions of  God  and  man,  that  men  began  also  in  political 
matters  to  question  the  origin  and  authority  of  existing 
institutions. 

This  was,  however,  not  done  by  the  leaders  of  the 
Reformation  ;  on  the  Continent,  they  recognized  existing 
civil  authority  as  an  institution  of  God,  although  not  so 
directly  as  had  been  heretofore  assumed.  The  legal  and 
moral  duties  of  a  man  were  derived  from  the  decalogue, 
and  Melancthon's  moral  philosophy  treats  of  our  rights 
and  duties  as  arising  directly  from  God's  command. 

They  did  not  follow  out,  in  political  questions,  the  same 
course  of  investigation  which  they  adopted  in  regard  to 
Church  matters,  where  they  assumed  by  their  reason 
alone  to  be  able  to  discover  at  any  time,  without  reference 
to  past  development,  the  true  will  of  God. 


69 


II. 

The  first  writer  to  claim  a  similar  pre-eminence  for 
human  reason  in  political  matters,  appears  to  have  been 
Hugo  Grotius,  in  his  work  entitled  "De  jure  belli  et 
pacis,"  published  in  1625. 

His  object  was  most  laudable.  He  had  seen  the 
miseries  which  were  produced  by  the  unmitigated 
violence  of  the  religious  wars  of  that  period;  he  could  not 
appeal  to  the  commands  of  God,  as  reason  for  their  miti- 
gation, because  the  contestants  believed  that  they  were 
fighting  under  God's  commands,  and  that  it  was  obeying 
Him  and  pleasing  Him  to  destroy  His  enemies.  Gro- 
tius, therefore,  had  to  find  some  authority  other  than  God. 
In  chapter  I.  of  his  first  book,  he  says:  "That which  we 
call  Natural  Right  or  the  Law  of  Nature  is  the  dictate  of 

right  Reason The  Law  of  Nature  is  so  immutable 

that  God  himself  cannot  alter  it."  And  in  the  introduc- 
tion he  bases  the  civil  law  on  this  natural  law,  as  follows: 
"  Again  seeing  that  it  is  a  dictate  of  the  Law  of  Nature  to 
fulfiii  covenants  and  agreements  (for  it  is  necessary  that 
there  should  be  some  means  of  obliging  men  among  them- 
selves, nor  can  there  be  any  other  means  found  that  is 
natural)  from  this  spring  flow  all  civil  laws." 

The  state,  therefore,  arises  from  contract,  contract 
arises  from  natural  law  and  natural  law  arises  from  human 
reason,  which  would  have  binding  authority,  as  he  says 
in  his  preface,  "though  we  should  grant,  what  without 
great  wickedness  we  cannot,  that  there  is  no  God,  or  that 
He  takes  no  care  of  human  affairs." 

Although  Grotius  thus  derives  the  authority  of  the 
state  from  the  people,  his  teachings  were  not  revolution- 
ary, because  he  considers  the  people  as  having  transferred 


JO 

the  authority  inalienably  to  their  sovereign;  nor  did  he 
have  much  effect  upon  private  law,  because  his  attention 
was  chiefly  directed  to  international  law,  with  which  we 
need  not  concern  ourselves  in  this  essay.  He  merely 
refers  to  private  law  in  his  first  chapter  of  first  book  as 
"that  law  that  is  of  lesser  extent,  andariseth not  from  the 
civil  power,  though  subject  unto  it,  is  various,  compre- 
hending under  it  that  of  a  father  over  his  children,  that 
of  a  master  over  his  servants  and  the  like."  From  this 
passage,  one  might  conclude  that  he  considered  these 
legal  institutions  to  have  an  origin  independent  of  the 
public  authority  and  the  social  contract;  and  the  subse- 
quent brief  treatment  of  the  institutions  of  private  law  in 
Chapter  III.  to  V.  of  Book  II.  does  not  dispel  this  idea, 
although  he  treats  of  marriage  as  an  institution  of  natural 
law  he  does  not  consider  individuals  as  having  trans- 
ferred all  their  rights  to  the  state,  but  only  such  as  are 
necessary  for  the  common  defence. 

The  reason  why  Grotius  and  his  successors  on  the  con- 
tinent adopted  the  theory  of  contract,  as  an  explanation 
of  the  origin  of  government,  is  that  at  that  time,  owing  to 
peculiar  historical  reasons,  the  mere  agreement  of  the 
parties  {nudum  pactum)  had  become  actionable.  The 
Roman  law,  as  is  well  known,  considered  an  agreement  to 
be  actionable  only  in  case  it  was  in  the  form  of  a  stipuut- 
tio,  or  in  case  something  was  delivered  or  performed 
(real  contract),  except  in  the  four  cases  of  sale,  lease,  man- 
date and  partnership,  in  wh'ch  the  mere  consent  of  the 
parties  sufficed. 

In  the  old  Germanic  law  on  the  continent,  a  similar 
rule  had  prevailed,  that  mere  agreements  were  not  action- 
able ;  thus,  in  our  English  law,  bonds  and  covenants  cor- 
responded to  the  Roman  stipulatio,  and  our  old  doctrine 
of  consideration,  which  did  not  consider  a  promise  a  good 
consideration  for  a  promise,   made  the  cases  in  which 


7* 

informal  promises  were  actionable  correspond  very  nearly 
to  the  real  contracts  of  the  Roman  law. 

However,  by  the  reception  ol  the  Roman  law  on  the 
continent,  the  old  Germanic  forms,  in  which  a  promise 
had  to  be  clothed  in  order  to  be  actionable,  were  pushed 
aside,  and  as  the  Roman  forms  were  unsuited  to  Germanic 
modes  of  life  and  business  dealings,  they  were  not 
adopted  nor  did  any  new  forms  spring  up.  so  that  the 
principle  that  the  nudum  pactum  was  actionable,  which  the 
Romans  had  particularly  confined  to  the  above  mentioned 
four  contracts,  was  generally  adopted,  for  the  first  time, 
probably  in  the  history  of  an  Aryan  people 

Another  fact,  which  tended  to  produce  the  idea  of  the 
inherent  binding  power  of  a  promise,  was  the  weight 
which  the  Church  had  through  all  the  middle  ages  laid 
upon  the  solemnity  of  an  oath.  The  Church  carried  this 
so  far  as  to  insist  that  the  benefit  of  all  laws  passed  for 
the  protection  of  an  individual  or  of  a  class,  might  be 
waived  by  an  oath  to  that  effect ;  for,  they  said,  a  broken 
oath  will  send  a  man's  soul  to  hell,  which  far  exceeds  any 
earthly  ill  which  he  might  suffer.  Hence,  minors  were 
allowed  to  make  binding  contracts,  if  they  swore  that  they 
would  not  resist  payment  by  appealing  to  the  law,  which 
prohibited  their  making  contracts. 

The  remains  of  the  spirit  of  chivalry,  also,  were  con- 
sonant with  this  idea,  that  all  promises  raised  binding 
obligations,  for  breach  of  his  plighted  word  was  one  of 
the  worst  offenses  of  which  a  knight  could  be  guilty;  so 
that  enemies  were  in  the  habit  of  releasing  each  other  on 
parole,  so  soon  as  the  amount  of  the  ransom  had  been 
agreed  upon.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  all  of  the  three 
ruling  castes  of  that  age — the  lawyers,  the  clergy  and  the 
knights,  were  familiar  with  the  idea  that  all  promises  must 
be  kept,  and  that  it  would  have  been  against  all  their 
teachings  and  prejudices  to  have  questioned  it. 


72 

The  material  situation  of  the  mass  of  the  people  at  that 
time  had  also  much  to  do  with  the  wide  influences  which 
this  theory  obtained.  One  of  the  many  evil  consequences 
which  the  sudden  immense  influx  of  new  ideas,  known  as 
the  Renaissance,  brought  with  it — in  consequence  of  the 
inability  of  one  age  to  digest  and  assimilate  so  vast  an 
amount  of  new  facts  and  theories — was  that  the  feudal 
chieftain  assumed  all  the  privileges  and  absolute  powers 
of  the  rulers  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  states,  and  forgot 
all  the  duties  which  he  owed  to  his  vassals  under  the  real 
feudal  system,  and  which  the  more  settled  state  of  the 
country  rendered  less  necessary. 

Everywhere,  therefore,  at  that  time  the  rulers  had  been 
increasing  their  power  and  rights  at  the  expense  of  their 
subordinates. 

These  rulers  needed  a  theory  by  which  to  secure  and 
justify  their  acquired  rights,  and  the  un-Germanic  idea 
of  one  absolute  corporation  forming  the  state.  This  was 
furnished  them  by  the  social  contract,  which,  as  taught 
before  Rousseau,  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  original 
contract  between  governors  and  governed  once  having 
been  made,  it  could  not  now  be  altered,  but  was  binding 
as  any  civil  contract.  The  necessity  for  this  artificial  ex- 
planation arose,  therefore,  from  the  fact  that  the  Greek 
and  Roman  forms  of  government  were  being  forced  upon 
a  Germanic  people.  When  a  people  has  a  suitable  gov- 
ernment it  asks  for  no  explanation  of  it.  But  the  rulers 
of  that  century  little  thought  that  by  the  fostering  of  this 
artificial  theory  they  were  preparing  a  weapon  which 
could  be  turned  with  equal  force  against  their  own  pre- 
tensions. 

Puffendorf  in  his  book,  "  De  Jure  Naturae  "  (1672),  and 
"  De  Officio  Hominis  et  Civis  "  (1693),  developed  Grotius' 
theory  and  applied  it  to  all  the  institutions  of  private  law, 
and  he  has  been  followed  so  blindly,  as  I  will  try  to  show 


hereafter,  that  he  might  almost  be  called  the  father  of  mod- 
ern jurisprudence,  although  in  his  "De  Jure  Naturae"  he  ex- 
pressly disclaims  the  intention  of  writing  a  complete  legal 
text  book.  He  says  :  "  So  we  that  profess  in  this  work  to 
treat  only  of  those  duties  of  men  which  the  light  of  reason 
shows  to  be  necessary  do  not  at  all  pretend  that  there  ever 
was  or  now  is  or  ought  to  be  such  a  state  in  which  those 
obligations  only  should  prevail,  exclusive  of  all  others." 
Puffendorf  was  not  a  great  original  thinker ;  his  ideas 
were  chiefly  derived  from  or  suggested  by  Grotius  and 
Hobbes  (whom  we  shall  consider  later) ;  but  he  first 
treated  all  legal  relations  from  this  standpoint  of  natural 
law,-  and  hence  his  book  had  such  a  widespread  influence. 
He  confuses  law  and  morals  ;  he  breaks  off  the  slender 
band  which  Grotius  still  maintained  between  God  and 
man,  and  declares  the  latter's  reason  to  be  all  sufficient; 
he  founds  the  institution  of  marriage  upon  the  consent  of 
the  parties,  and  makes  desperate  efforts  to  discover  some 
implied  consent  to  explain  the  duties  of  parent  and  child. 
Property  of  individuals  is  derived  from  all  things  having 
been  originally  held  in  common,  and  this  communism 
would  be  the  proper  condition  of  things,  except  where, 
by  the  terms  of  the  social  compact,  occupation  is  allowed. 
Torts  and  crimes  and  all  subjects  which  could  not  be  ex- 
plained as  contracts,  were  pushed  into  the  background. 

Grotius  and  Puffendorf  may,  therefore,  be  considered 
the  chief  of  the  older  exponents  of  the  social  contract. 

As  above  stated,  Puffendorf  derived  many  of  his  ideas 
from  Hobbes  ;  but  the  latter  cannot  properly  be  said  to 
have  believed  in  the  social  contract.  As  an  Englishman 
he  knew  that  promises,  unless  in  the  form  of  a  bond  or 
covenant,  were  not  actionable  ;  thus,  in  Chapter  XIV.  of 
his  Leviathan  (published  in  165 1)  he  says:  "Bonds  that 
have  their  strength  not  from  their  own  nature  (for  noth- 
ing is  more  easily  broken  than  a  man's  word),  but  from 


74 

fear  of  some  evil  consequences  upon  the  rupture."  He 
therefore  derived  the  necessity  of  keeping  the  social  con- 
tract merely  from  fear  of  what  would  happen  if  it  were 
broken  and  men  were  left  to  their  evil  passions.  He  was 
led  to  this  idea  from  contemplation  of  the  disorders 
which  filled  England  during  the  time  of  the  Common- 
wealth. 

In  other  points,  however,  his  strong  mind  carried  out 
the  ideas  of  Grotius  to  their  furthest  consequences.  His 
views  on  the  state  are  well  shown  in  his  first  introduction 
to  the  Leviathan :  "  For  by  art  is  created  that  great  levia- 
than called  a  commonwealth  or  state  (in  latin,  civitas), 
which  is  but  an  artificial  man,  ....  and  in  which 
the  sovereignty  is  an  artificial  soul,  as  giving  life  and 
motion  to  the  whole  body ;  .  .  .  .  lastly,  the  pacts 
and  covenants  by  which  the  parts  of  this  body  politique 
were  first  made  ....  resemble  that  fiat  or  '  let  us 
make  man,'  pronounced  by  God  in  the  creation."  From 
this  we  see  that  he  considered  the  government  absolute, 
and  that  men  could  create  any  form  of  it  they  pleased, 
which  opinion  he  frequently  reasserts.  He  recognized  no 
other  wrong  than  breach  ot  contract. 

Thus,  in  Chapter  XV.,  he  says:  "  And  the  definition  of 
injustice  is  no  other  than  the  not-performance  ot  cove- 
nant, and  whatsoever  is  not  unjust  is  just."  In  this  opinion 
he  goes  further  than  Grotius  or  any  of  his  successors. 
He  derives  the  absolute  power  of  government  from  prov- 
ing, in  Chapter  XVI II.,  the  absurdity  of  any  other  con- 
clusion from  the  social  contract,  supposing  that  actually 
to  have  taken  place.  This  mode  of  argument  was  subse- 
quently to  be  applied  to  the  theory  to  produce  very 
different  conclusions.  This  conclusion  is  expressed  in 
Chapter  XXI.:  "  Liberty  of  a  subject  lieth,  therefore,  only 
in  those  things  which,  in  regulating  their  actions,  the 
sovereign  hath  praetermitted." 


75 

He  boldly  carries  Grotius'  theory  of  the  independence 
of  man  from  God  to  its  full  extent;  thus  he  says  that 
atheism  cannot  be  a  vice,  beause  the  atheist  never  sub- 
mitted his  will  to  God,  and  no  one  can  have  power  over 
another  except  by  the  latter's  consent.  In  this  opinion  he 
agreed  with  the  absurd  views  of  Spinoza,  who  declared 
that  divine  law  began  from  that  time  when  man  by  ex- 
press compact  promised  to  obey  God  in  all  things ;  by 
which  deed  they  receded,  as  it  were,  from  their  natural 
liberty,  and  transferred  their  right  upon  God,  just  as  sov- 
eignty  is  conferred  in  civil  states. 

Kant  was  the  next  and  last  of  the  great  writers  who 
derived  an  absolute  form  of  government  from  the  social 
contract.  The  process  of  reasoning  by  which  he  reaches 
this  conclusion  is  difficult  to  discover  ;  thus,  in  his  Rechls- 
Lehre,  he  says :  "  The  legislative  power  can  only  belong 
to  the  united  will  of  the  people."  But  a  few  pages  iater 
he  says :  "  Against  the  rightful  head  of  the  state  there 
can,  therefore,  be  no  rightful  resistance  by  the  people." 
And:  "The  ruler  in  the  state  has  towards  his' subjects 
only  rights,  not  duties." 

Judging  from  his  general  mode  of  philosophical  argu- 
ment, which  assumes  that  things  are  not  actually  what 
they  seem,  but  that  they  nevertheless  exist  in  some  ideal 
form,  he  probably  considered  that  ideal  and  not  real  men 
made  the  social  contract  and  instituted  absolute  govern- 
ment, concerning  which  subjects  must  not  now  indulge  in 
presumptuous  theories  ("  Vernuenfteleien  ").  Upon  insti- 
tutions of  private  law,  however,  he  inconsequently  still 
allows  the  Volksmeinung  full  play  ;  thus,  concerning  the 
property  of  corporations,  he  writes  in  his  Anmerkung  A 
to  his  Staats-Recht :  "  So  soon  as  this  ( Volksmeinung) 
ceases,  and  even  if  only  in  the  opinion  of  those  who  by 
their  merits  have  the  pre-eminence,  ....  then  the 
supposed  right    of    property    must    also    cease."      The 


institution   of  the   family,  on  the  other  hand,  he  regards 
as  positive  and  unchanged,  because  demanded  by  reason. 

We  now  come  to  the  man  who,  starting  with  the  same 
fiction  of  a  social  contract,  came  to  very  opposite  conclu 
sions  from  these  supporters  of  absolute  monarchies,  which 
we  have  so  far  been  considering.  It  was  Jean  Jaques 
Rousseau  who  captured  this  formidable  battery  of  the  rul- 
ing classes  and  trained  its  guns  with  such  deadly  effect  upon 
its  former  owners.  He  accomplished  this  by  the  doctrine 
of  inalienable  rights,  which  he  promulgated  in  his  "  Con- 
trat  Social."  He  adopted  the  theory  of  an  original 
social  contract  without  reserve ;  he  says  in  Livre  I.,  Chap- 
ter IV.:  "Since  no  man  has  any  natural  authority  over 
his  equal,  and  since  force  produces  no  right,  it  fol- 
lows that  only  contracts  remain  as  a  basis  for  all  legiti- 
mate authority  among  men."  He,  however,  differs  in 
this  irom  Grotius,  in  that  he  claims  that  there  are  certain 
rights  of  which  men  could  not  have  disposed,  because 
they  could  receive  no  equivalent ;  thus  he  says  in  Chapter 
IV.,  that  for  a  freeman  to  sell  himself  would  be  absurd, 
because  he  could  not  be  in  his  senses,  since  he  could 
receive  no  equivalent  for  his  liberty.  He,  therefore,  in 
this  respect,  limits  the  power  of  man  over  himself. 

Only  one  form  of  a  good  government  is  therefore  possi- 
ble, which  consists  in  the  complete  transfer  of  all  indi- 
vidual rights  to  the  community,  as  a  whole:  "enfin 
chacun  se  dormant  a  tons  ne  se  donne  d  personnel  (Liv. 
1.,  Ch.  6.)  All  individuals,  therefore,  are  and  remain 
equal,  and  a  volontb  general  is  created  which  is  the  sover- 
eign, and  in  which  all  participate.  He  meets  the  objec- 
tion that  in  a  large  state  all  citizens  could  not  attend  the 
assemblies,  by  suggesting  that  large  states  are  not  neces- 
sary, but  each  city  may  form  a  state  by  itself.  (Liv.  III., 
Ch.  13.)  Like  the  Greeks  and  Romans  and  all  his  prede- 
cessors, he  assumes  that  the  power  of  this  government, 
this  volants  general  is  absolute  over  the  individual. 


77 

The  object  is  the  bien  public,  which  consists  in  all  having 
an  equal  share  of  the  goods  of  this  world;  hence,  all 
other  corporations  except  the  state,  and  all  individual 
interests  must  be  abolished. 

The  officers  of  the  government  are  the  agents  of  the 
people,  hence  they  are,  at  any  time,  liable  to  be  called  to 
account  and  deposed.  This  recall  of  power  is  no  revolu- 
tion, any  more  than  a  change  of  ministers  by  the  king ; 
rebellion  is  a  thing  which  does  not  exist. 

Rousseau  had  thus  carried  the  theory  of  the  social  con- 
tract at  one  bound  to  the  opposite  extreme  from  that 
maintained  by  Hobbes  and  Kant.  He  had  shown  that  it 
was  absurd  to  claim  that  the  original  contract  consisted 
in  an  entire  renunciation  of  all  rights  on  the  part  of  the 
people,  and  that,  if  that  had  been  the  case,  the  contract 
was  voidable.  The  supporters  of  monarchy  could  sug- 
gest no  other  theory  than  this  social  contract  and  had, 
therefore,  to  rely  upon  Hobbes'  assertion  that,  if  this  con- 
tract were  once  broken,  man  would  relapse  into  anarchy 
and  barbarism. 

It  was  the  success  and  good  order  of  our  Revolution 
which  knocked  away  this  last  prop  of  absolute  monarch- 
ies. The  New  England  descendants  of  the  Puritans  owed 
their  freedom  from  the  social  contract  theory,  as  well  as 
many  other  of  their  peculiarities,  to  the  fact  that  they  had 
escaped  the  effects  of  the  Renaissance.  Their  ancestors 
in  England  generally  belonged  to  a  class  which  was  not 
affected  by  the  Renaissance ;  and  after  their  emigration 
to  this  country  they  were  too  busy  with  cutting  down  the 
forests  and  fighting  Indians  to  think  much  of  Grotius  and 
Puffendorf.  Besides,  these  theories  of  the  supremacy  of 
human  reason  contradicted  their  belief  in  the  relation  of 
God  and  man.  They  still  considered  themselves  under 
the  direct  guidance  of  the  Almighty,  as  all  Europe  did 
before  the  Renaissance  ;  hence  they  set  up  their  covenant 


78 

with  God,  as  their  highest  law.  Hobbes  calls  this  an 
unmanly  lie  ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  no  more  a 
lie  than  his  faction  of  the  original  contract ;  and  at  all 
events,  it  had  the  fortunate  effect  of  preserving  our  people 
from  its  benumbing  influence.  The  reason  that  New 
York  was  less  ardent  in  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution 
may,  in  part,  be  ascribed  to  the  fact  that  it  was  under  the 
influence  of  a  small  number  of  wealthy  families,  who,  by 
their  superior  means  and  more  ample  leisure,  stood  in 
more  direct  communication  with  the  European  thought 
of  that  day,  and,  like  it,  dreaded  the  consequences  of 
questioning  this  theory,  sanctioned  by  such  high  authori- 
ties. 

Rousseau  did  not  have  to  wait  long  for  an  answer ;  it 
was  given  him  in  the  French  Revolution,  which,  though 
brought  about  in  a  large  part  by  the  desire  of  realizing 
his  Utopias,  showed  the  utter  incapacity  of  man  to  con- 
struct a  state  solely  by  aid  of  his  reason ;  only  the  mad- 
dest of  the  mad,  under  Baboeuf,  actually  attempted  to 
turn  his  ideal  into  reality,  although  his  ideas  were  adopted 
in  their  repeated  declarations  of  right. 


11. 

Since  the  French  revolution  the  theory  has  lost  its  com- 
manding position ;  the  impracticability  of  its  necessary 
consequences  is  recognized  ;  in  its  entirety  it  serves  now 
only  as  a  convenient  hypothesis  on  which  some  theoreti- 
cian in  law  or  political  economy  builds  up  an  airy  castle, 
with  massive  logic  and  unanswerable  arguments ;  but  its 
glittering  generalities  are  still  scattered  through  the 
books  of  many  writers  of  note,  and  are  still  received  as 
axioms,  in  apparent  ignorance  of  their  origin  and  neces- 
sary consequences ;  law  and  political  science,  especially, 


79 

still  suffer  from  the  effects  of  its  insidious   poison,    and 
languish,  unaware  of  the  chief  cause  of  their  disease. 

But  before  I  attempt  to  trace  out  the  effects  of  this 
theory,  in  modern  law  and  political  economy,  I  would 
briefly  here  consider  the  merits  of  the  social  contract 
theory  and  show  its  fallacy  as  a  theory  and  its  effects  on 
the  public  and  private  legal  institutions  of  that  age. 

Of  course,  its  great  fault  is  that  the  whole  thing  never 
occurred;  that  the  actual  state  was  not  formed  from 
individuals,  but  from  tribes,  which  again  consisted  of 
related  families  or  from  other  smaller  organizations ! 
that  the  individual  members  of  these  tribes  or  other 
organizations  were  not  living  in  a  lawless  state 
of  nature,  but  under  customary  laws,  which  had  been 
observed  for  ages ;  that  the  transition  from  a  confederacy 
of  tribes  into  a  state  was  so  gradual,  that  it  probably  had 
little  or  no  effect  upon  the  institutions  of  private  law  ;  that 
this  transition  was  generally  effected,  not  by  the  consent 
or  promise  of  the  individuals,  but  of  the  tribes  or  other 
organizations,  which,  as  a  rule,  transferred  only  certain 
enumerated  rights ;  that  no  organizations  or  individuals 
ever  voluntarily  surrendered  absolute  power  over  them- 
selves and  their  property  to  any  government. 

When  we  consider  these  delects  in  the  theory,  which  we 
would  think  would  strike  any  superficial  observer,  we 
must  wonder  at  the  ascendancy  which  it  gained,  did  we 
not  have  examples  enough  in  our  day  of  the  influence 
which  absurd  theories  can  acquire  when  sanctioned  by 
high  authorities.  When  we  see  the  real  power  which 
the  theory  still  exercises  and  the  weakness  of  the  oppos- 
ing theories,  I  think  we  will  be  less  positive  in  this 
opinion. 

The  effect  which  this  theory  had  in  its  days  on  public 
and  private  law  was  enormous.  It  first  of  all  divorced 
all  institutions,  public  and  private,  from  all  real  connec- 


tion  with  God;  it  failed,  however,  in  all  its  attempts,  to 
find  a  firm,  new  basis  on  which  to  erect  them ;  for,  since 
it  was  assumed  that  all  institutions  were  invented  by  man, 
man  must  necessarily  be  able  to  change  them  at  will ;  but, 
if  man  can  make  what  institutions  he  pleases,  he  must  also 
be  able  to  give  himself  into  slavery  or  into  subjection  to 
an  absolute  monarch.  So  that  on  the  first  theory  any 
government  might  be  overthrown  at  any  time ;  but,  on 
the  second  theory,  no  government,  however  oppressive, 
could  be  resisted  or  questioned.  In  the  same  manner  all 
legal  institutions  were  exposed  to  this  uncertainty ;  even 
contract  itself  could  not  be  shown  to  be  binding;  for, 
although  I  promised  to  do  a  thing,  in  the  next  minute  1 
might  refuse  to  perform  it,  as  abridging  my  liberty.  The 
right  of  property  was  denied  by  Proudhon  on  the  same 
reasoning.  Different  writers  attempted  to  avoid  this 
dilemma  by  assuming  that  those  rights  which  they  ap- 
proved of  were  inalienable,  but  the  line  was  entirely  arbi- 
trary. 

Not  only  the  state,  but  all  institutions  were  thus 
exposed  to  the  popular  whim.  Thus  marriage  was 
not  necessarily  monogamous  or  a  union  for  life ;  on  the 
contrary,  the  freedom  of  man  demanded  that  this  contract 
might  be  dissolved  at  any  time,  at  the  will  of  either  party, 
and  certainly  by  mutual  consent.  The  great  fact  that  the 
community,  as  a  whole,  had  any  interest  in  the  conduct  of 
individuals,  or  any  right  to  interfere  with  them,  except 
where  the  individuals  had  consented  to  such  right  of 
interference,  was  denied.  Hence,  all  legal  institutions  for 
which  the  ingenious  imaginations  of  the  philosophers 
could  find  no  consent  as  its  basis,  were  shriveled  up  or 
discarded  altogether.  Thus  the  rights  and  duties  of 
parents  and  children  towards  each  other  formed  a  great 
stumbling  block,  which  they  could  only  partly  get  over 
by  assuming  that  by  the  act  of  generation  the  parent  had 


8i 

impliedly  contracted  to  support  his  offspring  ;  "but  the 
duty  was  reduced  to  a  minimum,  as  this  was  felt  to  be  a 
weak  point. 

The  whole  subject  of  civil  wrongs  or  torts  was  usually 
omitted  or  brought  in  under  the  head  of  an  implied 
consent,  although  it  would  seem  that  to  hold  a  man 
liable  for  consent  which  he  had  never  in  fact  given  was 
as  tyrannical  as  any  act  could  well  be.  The  subject  of 
contracts  was  thereby  divorced  from  that  of  torts  and 
given  undue  importance  and  a  separate  treatment.  More- 
over, the  whole  subject  of  morals  was  introduced  into 
law  and  mixed  in  inextricable  confusion ;  the  law  of 
nature,  as  it  was  called,  was  considered  as  raising  direct 
legal  obligations,  without  further  sanction  by  the  legisla- 
tive authority.  In  Germany,  it  is  true,  under  the  influ- 
ence of  Leibnitz,  Thomasius  distinguished  legal  from 
moral  obligations  by  the  criterion  that  only  the  former 
were  to  be  enforced  by  the  courts ;  but  this  distinction,  as 
we  will  see  hereafter,  was  not  adopted  by  later  English 
writers. 

The  precise  and  complete  legal  system  of  the  Germanic 
lawyers  was  replaced,  so  far  as  possible,  by  a  confused, 
barbarous  jargon  about  natural  rights,  agreements,  con- 
tracts, covenants,  pacts,  etc.,  which  terms  no  two  writers 
used  in  the  same  sense,  or  which  often  meant  different 
things  in  the  same  volume  or  chapter.  In  England  the 
Germanic  law,  under  the  name  of  the  feudal  system,  was 
confined  to  the  law  of  real  estate,  and  could  there  keep  up 
with  the  wants  of  national  development  only  by  labori- 
ously defined  fictions — which,  however,  were  after  all 
better  than  the  fine  sounding  but  utterly  confused  system 
which  regulated  personal  property  ;  the  lawyers  felt  that 
the  only  salvation  for  the  stability  of  the  law  of  real  prop- 
erty, on  which  such  vast  interests  depended,  was  to  keep 
it  out  of  the  vortex  of  natural  law,  which  had  swallowed 


82 

so  many  legal  institutions,  and  which  necessarily  led  to 
communism. 

Another,  probably  the  most  important,  evil  effect  of  the 
social  contract  theory  was,  as  above  stated,  that  all  cor- 
porations or  unions  except  the  State  must  be  abolished. 
Hobbes  declared  them  to  be  the  animalculae  which  exist 
within  and  feed  upon  the  human  body,  and  Rousseau  was 
most  positive  in  his  denunciations  of  them,  because  they 
intercepted  the  wills  of  the  individuals,  and  kept  them 
from  forming  that  volont/  general  which  was  the  only 
popular  form  of  government.  Other  writers  of  this  school 
were  equally  contemptuous  of  these  intermediate  organi- 
zations, or  simply  ignored  them. 

We  will  next  endeavor  to  trace  the  influence  of  this 
theory  upon  the  writings  of  the  chief  German  philophers, 
and  then,  finally,  upon  the  English  and  American  writers 
on  law  and  political  economy.  These  men  differ  irom 
the  predecessors  of  Rousseau  in  this  respect,  that  they  did 
not  actually  believe  that  the  social  contract  theory  could 
be  made  a  rule  for  the  formation  of  the  State,  but  they 
accepted  it  as  a  theory,  in  default  of  any  other,  to  explain 
and  justify  the  existence  of  government  as  a  purely  human 
institution  without  acknowledging  God.  Thus  Fichte 
carried  the  theory  of  human  independence  to  its  furthest 
extent,  identifying  the  thinking  individual  with  the  uni- 
verse. In  his  "  Natur-Recht  "  (page  139),  he  says:  "The 
possibility  of  rights  between  individuals  in  natural  law  is 
based  upon  mutual  trust  and  good  faith ; "  and  on  page 
129:  "An  original  right  is  only  a  fiction,  but  it  must  be 
assumed  for  the  purposes  of  science."  No  one  carried  the 
inevitable  results  of  this  theory  more  completely  to  their 
greatest  extent ;  thus  he  says  of  property,  on  page  129: 
u  The  right  to  exclusive  possession  (property)  is  acquired 
by  mutual  consent,  is  limited  by  it,  and  cannot  exist  with- 
out it."     He  thus  preached  communism,  pure  and  simple. 


83 

However,  in  his  later  work,  entitled  "  Staats-Lehre," 
where  he  undertakes  to  construct  an  actual  State,  he  fol- 
lows a  very  different  plan.  To  the  question,  "  Who  has 
the  right  to  be  ruler  ? "  he  replies,  on  page  87 :  "  The 
highest  human  intelligence,  and  since  this  never  exists,  the 
highest  intellect  of  that  age  and  time."  He  then  discusses 
at  length  how  this  highest  intellect  is  to  be  recognized, 
and  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the  learned  must  name 
him  as  ruler  from  their  midst  who  has  shown  the  highest 
intellect.  He,  however,  fails  to  explain  how  this  aristo- 
cratic body  of  wise  men  is  to  form  itself,  and  generally  in 
his  treatment  of  the  subject  seems  to  deserve  the  epithet 
of  "  ink-fish  "  which  Schoppenhauer  gave  him,  from  the 
impenetrable  cloud  of  words  in  which  he  enveloped  him- 
self. 

A  reaction  against  this  whole  social  contract  philosophy 
was  started  by  Niebuhr's  discovery  of  Gajus'  manuscript, 
which  had  been  written  over  with  a  homily  of  the  Middle 
Ages.  From  this  it  appeared  that  the  Roman  law,  and 
consequently  the  State,  was  not  the  product  of  pure  rea- 
son and  absolutely  correct,  but  that  it  had  undergone 
many  and  great  changes.  But  the  aversion  to  all  philo- 
sophical theorizing  on  the  subject  of  law  was  so  great 
with  Savigny  and  his  followers  that  they  never  promul- 
gated any  definite  system,  but  contented  themselves  with 
looking  up  the  historical  development  of  Roman  law  and 
studying  out  the  meaning  of  dark  passages  in  the  corpus 
juris.  And  they  then  applied  their  conclusions,  with  but 
little  respect  for  practical  consequences,  to  upset  long 
established  ideas  of  Roman  law,  on  which  the  most  valu- 
able rights  depended. 

To  account  for  the  rule  of  Roman  law  in  Germany  they 
generally  compared  the  Roman  law  to  Christianity,  which 
had  also  spread  from  Rome  and  thus  attempted  to  give 
Roman  law  a  sort  of  halo,  which  should  protect  it   from 


84 

inquiry.  The  great  growth  of  their  school  may  be 
accounted  for  by  its  being  in  accordance  with  the  popu- 
lar sentiment  at  that  time,  which,  sick  of  the  social  con- 
tract and  the  products  of  human  reason,  clung  anxiously 
to  all  that  had  been  handed  down  from  the  past. 

But  by  the  exaltation  of  the  historical  method,  the 
Romanists  raised  an  opposition  historical  school  of  the 
so-called  Germanists,  who  contended  that  Germanic  law 
should  be  the  principal  object  of  our  research.  They  too, 
however,  advanced  no  decided  political  or  legal  theory, 
being  contented  with  the  assertion  that  the  chief  source  of 
law  was  custom,  but  they  carefully  and  apparently  inten- 
tionally avoided  the  natural  conclusion  that  law  was  the  will 
of  the  people.  This  would  not  have  pleased  the  govern- 
ment, which  supported  the  learned  professors.  However, 
the  Germanists  are  gradually  being  forced  to  assume  that 
popular  customs  of  to-day  also  deserve  attention,  and  under 
the  theory  of  the  so-called  "  Natur  der  Sache  "  they  are 
beginning  to  recognise  again  the  popular  participation  in 
the  origin  of  law.  Hegel  in  his  Staats-Recht  may  be 
said  to  have  developed  the  philosophy  of  this  school,  at 
least  in  its  results  as  passively  accepting  existing  govern- 
ments. As  the  natural  and  inevitable  result  of  history 
it  is  identical  with  the  inferences  to  be  drawn  from  the 
teachings  of  the  historical  school.  As  in  his  famous  sen- 
tence: "  What  is  rational  (vernunftig)  exists,  and  what  exists 
is  rational."  He  denied  most  emphatically  the  social  con- 
tract theory,  although  the  reason  for  the  denial  is  some- 
what strained  ;  he  says  in  §75  :  "  The  State  must  allow  per- 
sons to  enter  and  leave  it;  this  is  independent  of  the  will 
of  individuals,  and  the  State  therefore  cannot  rest  on  con- 
tract, because  that  requires  free-will  (willkur).  It  is  incor- 
rect to  say  that  it  depends  on  the  will  of  all  to  form  a  State ; 
it  is  on  the  contrary  absolutely  necessary  for  every  one  to  be 
in  the  State."     His  extreme  conservative  tendencies  are 


85 

shown  further  by  his  denial  in  §273  of  the  right  to  alter 
the  constitution,  except  in  the  manner  provided  for  by  the 
constitution.  How  he  reaches  his  conclusions  I  would 
not  dare  to  guess.  As  a  specimen  of  his  perspicacity  I 
will  cite  his  definiton  of  a  State  in  §275  :  "  The  State  is 
the  reality  of  the  moral  idea — the  moral  spirit,  as  the  re- 
vealed, self-conscious,  substantial  will,  which  thinks  and 
knows  and  accomplishes  that  what  it  knows  and  so  far  as 
it  knows  it."  Fortunately,  however,  he  reassures  us  in 
§270 :  "  The  State  exists  in  reality." 

But  in  spite  of  this  lack  of  clearness,  Hegel  deserves 
the  greatest  credit  for  having  emancipated  himself  en- 
tirely from  the  social  contract  theory,  and  based  the  State 
upon  the  natural  requirements  of  our  being.  The  result 
of  his  writings  has  been  to  finally  banish  the  social  com- 
pact, even  as  a  fiction,  among  the  things  of  the  past.  I 
will  only  further  call  attention  to  Schleiermacher  and 
Schoppenhauer,  the  former  of  whom  seems  to  correspond 
with  our  utilitarian  school  and  the  latter  with  the  later 
fatalistic  and  materialistic  philosophy  of  Darwinism. 

However,  Schoppenhauer's  abstract  ideas  of  the  origin 
of  justice  are  of  the  highest  value ;  but  his  practical  con- 
clusions, that  the  constitutional  monarchy  is  the  only 
natural  form  of  government,  is  an  evidence  of  the  strength 
of  his  prejudices. 

Ihering,  probably  the  greatest  of  modern  jurists,  in  his 
uncompleted  work  on  "  Zweck  im  Recht "  (Purpose  in 
Law),  although  in  his  earlier  work  on  "  Geist  des 
Romischen  Rechts"  he  adopted  the  social  contract 
theory,  promises  to  give  us  a  philosophy  of  law  equal 
in  value  to  his  preceding  historical  researches ;  in  opposi- 
tion to  materialism,  he  insists  upon  the  dependence  of 
man  on  God,  and  that  everything  is  not  merely  a  means, 
but  also  serves  a  purpose.  His  work  is  one  of  the  many 
signs  that  the  world  may  in  the  not  distant  future  draw 


not  only  its  theory  of  government,  but.  also  its  religion, 
from  Germany. 

We  pass  to  a  brief  consideration  of  the  influence  which 
this  theory  had  upon  English  writers  on  law  and  political 
theories.  Its  effect  upon  law  cannot  fully  be  traced  in  this 
essay,  as  it  would  lead  us  into  a  too  technical  discussion. 
I  will  only  mention  that  the  real  origin  of  equity,  as  we 
have  it  to-day,  dates  from  the  time  of  Lord  Nottingham, 
who  became  Chancellor  under  Charles  II.  We  may  safely 
assume  that  this  sudden  development  of  a  few  uncertain 
principles  into  the  great  fabric  which  arose  at  that  time 
would  not  have  taken  place  had  not  the  writings  of 
Grotius  and  Hobbes  existed  and  shown  the  way  to  a 
larger  adaptation  of  principles  of  morality  as  law.  The 
first  writers  on  equity  are  entirely  under  the  influence  of 
the  social  contract  theory.  However,  the  evils  which 
accompanied  this  introduction  of  these  teachings  are  very 
evident.  A  whole  new  terminology  was  introduced,  so 
that  the  law  of  personal  property,  which  came  into  im- 
portance since  that  time,  has  nothing  to  offer  in  compari- 
son with  the  exact  and  complete  system  of  the  real  estate 
law.  All  the  evils,  which  I  have  before  referred  to  as 
produced  upon  the  Germanic  laws  of  the  Continent,  were 
felt  in  England,  although  perhaps  not  to  so  great  an  ex- 
tent, as  the  English  were  more  practical  in  their  nature ; 
thus  contracts  received  undue  importance ;  duties  arising 
from  family  relation  were  decreased ;  new  duties  to  suit 
new  forms  of  business  were  not  imposed ;  the  certainty  of 
judgment  of  the  older  judges,  as  expressing  the  will  of  the 
people,  founded  upon  absolute  ideas  of  right  and  wrong, 
disappeared,  and  in  its  place  came  an  anxious  searching 
after  some  sort  of  an  express  or  implied  consent  of  the 
party  to  be  charged  with  the  duty.  Blackstone  wrote 
under  the  direct  influence  of  Puffendorf  and  Hobbes, 
whom  he  cites  frequently.     His  explanation  of  the  origin 


87 

of  law  and  its  definition  is  made  up  of  inconsistent  ex- 
tracts from  these  writers,  slightly  modified  by  his  practi- 
cal knowledge  of  their  absurdity. 

Thus,  although  he  denies  that  an  actual  social  contract 
was  ever  made,  nevertheless  he  assumes  its  existence  as 
the  chief  argument  against  changing  the  British  Constitu- 
tion ;  he  says  in  his  introduction,  section  2 :  "  The  Legis- 
lature would  be  changed  from  that  which  (upon  the  sup- 
position of  an  original  contract,  either  actual  or  implied,) 
is  presumed  to  have  been  originally  set  up  by  the  general 
consent  and  fundamental  act  of  the  society."  Such  a 
change,  he  implies,  would  produce  anarchy,  thereby 
placing  himself  on  the  standpoint  of  Kant  as  opposed 
to  Rousseau. 

Blackstone's  further  remarks  about  the  law  of  nature, 
from  which  all  human  laws  derive  their  authority,  and 
which  is  to  be  recognized  by  individual  reason,  show  the 
usual  confusion  of  ideas  of  writers  of  that  period,  and  fully 
deserve  the  merciless  criticism  to  which  they  were  sub- 
jected by  Bentham  in  his  "  Fragment  of  Government." 
Unfortunately,  Blackstone  knew  nothing  of  the  work  of 
Leibnitz  and  Thomasius,  hence  he  mixes  up  law  and  mor- 
ality in  dire  confusion ;  and  still  more  unfortunately,  no 
jurist  has  arisen  in  English  law  since  his  day  to  pull  the 
English  law  out  of  the  slough  of  despond  into  which  the 
social  contract  theorists  plunged  it,  as  was  done  by  Tho- 
masius for  continental  jurisprudence. 

The  difference  between  Blackstone  and  Coke  may  be 
shown,  for  example,  by  the  fact  that  Blackstone,  in  his 
third  volume,  derives  the  right  to  penalties  from  the 
original  compact ;  but  Coke,  in  the  third  part  of  his  "  In- 
stitutes "  (chap.  69),  says  that  a  bond  given  to  the  king's 
officers  to  secure  the  performance  of  a  public  duty  is  void, 
**  for  that  every  man  is  bound  to  do  to  the  king  as  to  his 
liege  lord  all  that  appertaineth  to  him,  without  any  man- 
ner of  writing." 


88 

Bentham  opposed  this  social  contract  theory  with  the 
theory  of  utility ;  he  claims  this  in  the  historical  preface 
to  the  second  edition  of  the  "  Fragment  of  Government." 
But  in  fact  he  only  takes  up  the  opposite  view  to  Black- 
stone,  which  Rousseau  had  promulgated,  namely,  that 
the  government  might  be  altered  at  any  time  by  individ^ 
uals ;  this  in  effect,  of  course,  denied  the  binding  force  of 
the  contract,  and  hence  upset  the  theory.  Thus  he  says, 
in  chapter  IV.,  page  37 :  "  God  forbid  ....  that  in  any 
society  any  convention  is  or  can  be  made  which  shall  have 
the  effect  of  setting  up  an  insuperable  bar  to  that  which 
the  parties  affected  shall  deem  a  reformation ;"  and  again, 
on  page  272:  "Now,  this  other  principle  (for  social  contract 
theory)  that  still  recurs  upon  us,  what  other  can  it  be  than 
the  principle  of  utility  ?  The  principle  which  furnishes  us 
with  that  reason,  which  alone  depends  not  upon  any  higher 
reason,  but  which  is  itself  the  sole  and  all  sufficient  reason 
for  every  point  of  practice  whatsoever." 

"  Utility  "  is,  of  course,  nothing  but  another  name  for 
what  we  desire,  what  our  reason  leads  us  to  desire ;  this 
is,  therefore,  only  a  translation  of  Rousseau's  theory  into 
English.  Even  the  term  "  utility,"  which  he  claims  to 
derive  from  Hume,  occurs  on  the  first  page  of  the  "  Con- 
trat  Social,"  where  Rousseau  declares  it  to  be  his  pur- 
pose "  enfin  que  la  justice  et  Futility  ne  se  trouvent  point 
devises."  Bentham's  other  great  idea  about  the  univer- 
sality of  law,  that  "  the  same  arrangement  that  would  serve 
for  the  jurisprudence  of  any  one  country  would  serve  with 
little  variation  for  that  of  any  other"  (introduction  to 
"  Fragment"),  is  common  to  all  believers  in  the  social  con- 
tract and  the  infallibility  of  reason ;  and  his  theory  of  an 
absolute  centralized  government  is  evidently  taken  directly 
from  Hobbes.  Thus  he  says :  "  Have  these  supreme  gov- 
ernors any  such  duties?  No!"  If  Bentham  had  more 
often  acknowledged  the  sources  from  which  he  drew  his 


89 

ideas,  his  theories  would  have  had  less  weight,  and  his 
proposed  changes  would  not  have  been  so  rashly  adopted. 

Austin,  in  his  "  Principles  of  Jurisprudence,"  although 
he  most  clearly  shows  the  absurdity  of  claiming  that  an 
actual  social  contract  was  ever  made,  seems  to  place  him- 
self very  nearly  on  the  same  standpoint  as  Hobbes, 
except  that  he  also  follows  Bentham  in  adopting 
Rousseau's  theory  of  inalienable  rights.  Thus,  in  the 
note  on  page  287,  volume  first,  he  says  that  Hobbes* 
capital  errors  are :  Firstly,  "  He  makes  not  the  requisite 
allowance  for  the  anomalous  and  excepted  cases  wherein 
disobedience  is  counselled  by  that  very  principle  of  utility 
which  indicates  the  duty  of  submission."  Secondly,  "  In- 
stead of  directly  deriving  the  existence  of  political  gov- 
ernment from  a  perception  by  the  bulk  of  the  governed 
of  its  great  and  obvious  expediency,  he  ascribes  the 
origin  of  sovereignty  and  of  independent  political  society 
to  a  fictitious  agreement  or  covenant." 

"  Perception  of  expediency"  and  "  utility"  are,  of  course, 
only  other  names  for  the  dictates  of  reason.  Austin,  also, 
retains  the  anti-Germanic  notions  of  the  supporters  of 
the  social  contract  theory  concerning  the  necessity  of  an 
absolute  "sovereign;"  he  quotes  Grotius'  and  Hobbes' 
definitions  of  sovereignty  #as  authorities,  on  pages  241  and 
286;  he  follows  Hobbes  in  the  opinion  that  people  obey 
government  chiefly  for  fear  of  anarchy  which  would  other- 
wise ensue  ;  he  confuses  law  and  morality  in  a  manner 
which  has  never  been  excelled  before  or  since.  If  the 
philosophy  of  law  is  really  so  difficult  and  complicated  a 
matter  as  Austin  represents  it,  it  is  not  worth  studying ; 
he  makes  a  definition  of  law  and  then  coolly  informs  us 
that  all  special  acts  of  the  legislature  are  not  laws,  since 
they  do  not  agree  with  his  definition.  As  an  example,  he 
states,  on  page  96,  "  An  order  issued  by  Parliament,  stop- 


go 

ping  the  exportation  of  corn  then  shipped  would  not  be  a 
law  or  rule,  though  issued  by  the  sovereign  legislature." 

In  fact,  his  whole  book,  in  spite  of  his  admirable  ingen- 
uity, may  be  considered  a  melancholy  monument  to  the 
sad  condition  of  our  law,  caused  by  the  utter  confusion  of 
legal  terms  and  ideas  and  our  inability  to  form  any  system 
without  an  understanding  of  the  history  of  these  terms 
and  ideas  and  their  derivation  from  Roman  and  Germanic 
sources.  That  Austin  himself  regarded  his  book  as  a 
failure  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  he  always  refused  to 
undertake  to  arrange  it  for  a  new  edition.  His  epitaph 
should  be :  "  Magna  conatus  periit." 

The  great  reputation  and  incomprehensibleness  of 
Austin  seems  to  have  prevented  other  English  writers  from 
venturing  upon  the  field  of  the  theory  of  jurisprudence  unfil 
within  the  last  ten  years.  The  authors  of  legal  works 
were  content  to  start  with  the  terms  law,  right,  sover- 
eignty, etc.,  without  offering  any  theory  as  to  their  origin. 
Recently,  however,  these  questions  are  again  being  con- 
sidered. Thus  Sheldon  Ames,  Professor  of  Jurispru- 
dence at  the  University  College,  London,  has  written 
some  interesting  books  on  codification  and  the  science  of 
law,  but  like  Austin  he  is  hopelessly  befogged  by  the 
various  meanings  of  legal  terms  and  by  lack  of  historical 
knowledge  of  jurisprudence.  *  Thus,  in  his  Science  of 
Jurisprudence  (vol.  I,  p.  i)  he  defines  law  as  a  command 
published  by  a  sovereign  political  authority,  but  in  the 
next  page  he  says :  "  Law  and  government  are  born 
together,  grow  together  and  die  together."  It  is  difficult 
to  understand  how  government  can  be  the  author  of  law 
and  yet  be  born  at  the  same  time.  In  general  he  may  be 
said  to  follow  Austin  in  his  definitions  of  law,  sovereignty, 
etc.,  and  the  same  disheartening  lack  of  perspicuity 
characterizes  his  works.  He  considers  that  Bentham 
constructed  the  science  of  law  and  that  Austin  deserves 


91 

the  credit  of  its  "  conscious  establishment  "  (Science  of 
Law,  p.  8).  The  works  of  the  English  theoretical  writers 
would  be  far  more  valuable  if  they  were  less  possitive  in 
their  tone  and  recognized  the  fact  that  no  science  of  law 
exists  at  present,  or  is  at  present  possible;  that  we  are 
hopelessly  befogged  and  our  only  salvation  is  in  a  careful, 
modest  study  of  the  historical  development  of  our  law, 
so  as  to  clear  away  the  errors  and  uncertainties  which  at 
present  trip  us  up  at  every  attempted  advance.  It  is  not 
well  to  cry:  "  Peace,  peace,  when  there  is  no  peace,"  or 
to  build  houses  upon  foundations  of  sand. 

I  will  only  refer  to  one  other  jurist  who  treats  of  the 
theory  of  law  and  its  origin,  namely,  Mr.  Willard,  in 
his  book  on  the  "  Law  of  Personal  Rights,"  published 
by  Appleton  &  Co.,  1882. 

He  adopts  the  theory  of  the  social  contract  as  a  neces- 
sary hypothesis.  The  following  selections  convey  his 
views :  "  To  find  the  origin  of  the  principles  and  the  rules 
of  the  law  it  is  not  necessary  that  resort  should  be  had 
to  actual  historical  facts"  (p.  25).  "We  are  to  consider 
law  as  the  expanded  form  of  an  obligation  of  a  general 
nature"  (p.  44).  "  According  to  legal  ideas  and  for  legal 
purposes  the  delegation  of  sovereign  authority  by  the 
members  of  a  society,  to  be  exercised  by  the  major  part 
of  such  society,  is  absolute"  (p.  29).  "  Upon  the  principles 
of  legal  construction  the  original  intention  of  society  must 
be  regarded  as  creating  sovereign  power  and  lodging  it 
for  exercise  in  the  hands  ol  the  majority  of  the  commun- 
ity" (p.  27).  We  see,  therefore,  that  he  draws  from  the 
myth  of  an  original  contract,  according  to  "  legal  ideas 
and  for  legal  purposes,"  the  very  material  result  that 
majorities  have  absolute  power  in  all  communities.  This 
is  only  another  instance  of  how  any  form  of  government 
can  be  justified,  if  we  only  grant  the  hypothesis  of  an 
original  contract.     Hobbes  proved  the  exclusive  propriety 


92 

of  absolutism ;  Rousseau  did  the  same  for  communism ; 
Schoppenhauer  derived  constitutional  monarchy,  and 
vVillard  democracy,  from  the  same  source. 

I  will  only  add,  concerning  Mr.  Willard's  book,  that  its 
clearest  parts  are  considerably  more  obscure  than  Mr. 
Austin's  most  involved  ratiocinations. 

If  we  turn  from  these  English  theoretical  jurists  to 
the  English  writers  on  the  history  of  law,  we  find  a 
wonderful  difference.  The  latter,  adopting  the  methods 
of  the  Savigny  school,  are  producing  even  more  im- 
portant results  from  their  acquaintance  with  the  old 
laws  of  India  and  Ireland,  which,  as  products  of  related 
Aryan  races,  are  so  useful  in  elucidating  English  and 
Roman  law.  Moreover,  from  the  fact  that  England 
is  the  only  modern  Aryan  race  which  has  developed 
a  legal  system  at  all  comparable  to  that  of  Rome,. 
English  lawyers  can  get  a  better  idea  of  the  actual 
substance  of  Roman  law  from  the  scattered  decisions  in 
the  Corpus  juris  of  Justinian  than  Continental  jurists, 
whose  natural  law  was  stamped  out  centuries  ago  by 
attempted  imitations  of  the  Corpus  juris. 

As  to  theories  of  the  origin  of  law,  Phillimore  contents 
himself  with  adopting  the  social  contract  theory  as  a 
necessary  or  useful  hypothesis,  and  Maine  states  in  his 
"Early  History  of  Institutions"  (p.  354):  "The  analysis 
of  government  and  society  and  the  determination  of  sov- 
ereignty are  so  nearly  completed  (by  Hobbes)  that  little 
could  be  added  to  them  by  Bentham  and  Austin."  As 
Savigny  and  his  followers  in  Germany  were  frightened 
from  investigations  of  legal  philosophy  by  the  high- 
sounding  obscurity  of  Hegel,  and  contented  themselves 
generally  with  adopting  it  blindly,  so  the  English  histori- 
cal jurists  were  content  to  worship  the  vail  behind  which 
Bentham  and  Austin  and  their  followers  hid  themselves. 

Not  so  did  Franz  Lieber.     His  work  is  particularly  valu- 


93 

able  as  a  proof  of  what  advantages  residents  of  America 
have  in  the  consideration  of  legal-political  topics  if  they 
possess  adequate  theoretical  knowledge,  from  the  fact 
that  they  live  in  a  land  where  the  origin  and  growth  of 
Germanic  communities  and  States  is  under  their  imme- 
diate observation,  and  also  from  the  fact  that  they  are 
free  from  the  preconceptions  necessarily  entertained  by 
men  whose  salaries  are  paid  by  a  monarchial  government, 
and  who  have  been  brought  up  from  their  youth  with 
ideas  of  and  traditions  in  favor  of  certain  forms  of  govern- 
ment. 

The  great  importance  of  his  work,  in  my  opinion,  lies 
in  the  fact  that  he  expounded  scientifically  the  Germanic 
theory  known  as  self-government,  as  distinguished  from 
the  theories  of  absolute  sovereignty.  In  his  "  Political 
Ethics"  (volume  I.,  page  352),  he  says  that  all  states  are 
autarchies  or  hamarchies  (the  latter  word  being  derived 
from  the  Greek  words  signifying  "  jointly,"  and  to  rule). 
Autarchy  is  absolutism,  or  absolute  power ;  hamarchy  has 
an  organic  life,  with  distinct  parts,  with  independent 
action,  like  an  animal  body  ;  the  form  may  be  monarchy 
{as  in  England),  or  democracy  (as  in  the  United  States). 
France,  under  Napoleon  III.,  was  an  autarchy,  with 
centralized,  absolute  government. 

In  his  subsequent  work  on  Civil  Liberty,  he  develops 
this  idea,  terming  it  "  institutional  self-government," 
which  he  describes  as  "  of  an  interguaranteeing  and  con- 
sequently interlimiting  character,  and  in  this  aspect  the 
negation  of  absolutism"  (p.  319),  and  as  requiring  "that 
everything  which  can  without  general  inconvenience  be 
left  to  the  circle  to  which  it  belongs,  be  thus  left  to  its  own 
management"  (p.  321).  This  was  the  opposite  to  Rous- 
seau's "  inarticulated,  unorganized,  uninstitutional  major- 
ity" (p.  372).  Lieber  therefore  in  my  opinion,  although 
he  partly  availed  himself  of  the   conclusions  of  Hegel,  de- 


94 

serves  the  credit  of  being  the  first  who  met  this  social 
contract  theory  successfully,  and  gave  a  foundation  of 
fact  instead  of  fiction  for  our  theories  on  law  and  govern- 
ment ;  although  De  Tocqueville,  in  his  laudation  of  New 
England  townships  in  his  Democracy  in  America,  had 
partly  shown  the  way. 

Had  Lieber's  Political  Ethics  been  written  but  a  few 
years  earlier,  so  that  Webster  could  have  used  it,  as  an  ar- 
senal, in  his  fight  with  Calhoun  on  nullification,  the  history 
of  the  United  States  might  have  been  very  different ;  as  it 
is,  however,  I  believe  that  our  whole  people  owe  him  a 
large  debt  of  gratitude.  Mohl  and  other  modern  German 
writers  of  the  so-called  Professorial  Socialist  School  have 
followed  in  and  developed  the  same  general  line  of 
thought,  although  they  give  too  much  authority  and 
initiative  to  the  State,  instead  of  to  the  organizations 
between  the  State  and  the  individual ;  they  would  force  a 
growth  from  above,  instead  of  awaiting  a  development 
from  below. 

Oliver  Wendell  Holmes,  Jr.,  in  his  recent  book  on  the 
Common  Law,  is  another  American  writer  who  has  steered 
clear  of  these  Old  World  fogbanks,  but  he  confines  him- 
self more  particularly  to  questions  of  private  law  and  the 
elucidation  of  the  many  historical  problems,  which  must 
precede  any  successful  attempt  at  construction  of  new  law 
on  our  part;  he  makes  the  basis  of  law,  however,  too  nar- 
row, when  he  cites  with  approval  Sir  James  Stephens' 
opinion,  that  its  object  is  the  gratification  of  revenge. 

His  whole  book  is  a  sign  of  great  promise  and  indicates 
that  we  will  have  a  race  of  American  writers  on  political 
and  legal  topics,  which  will  surpass  that  of  any  previous 
age  or  country,  if  we  will  only  begin  from  the  beginning 
and  get  rid  of  this  conglomeration  of  Roman  and  Ger- 
manic theories  and  terminology. 


95 


III. 

The  most  important  role,  however,  which  this  theory 
of  the  social  contract  has  played  in  the  world's  history,  up 
to  the  present  time,  was  in  this  country.  It  is  true  that 
the  name  appears  comparatively  seldom,  and  that  its 
European  authors  are  not  often  cited,  for  a  very  good 
reason,  which  will  be  later  explained;  but  the  fact 
remains,  that  had  it  not  been  for  the  influence  of  this 
theory,  the  history  of  the  United  States  would  have  been 
very  different.  The  men  who  guided  the  country  through 
the  Revolution  and  who  afterwards  formed  the  United 
States  Constitution,  were  not  perceptibly  influenced  by 
this  theory  ;  in  neither  the  Articles  of  Confederation  nor 
in  the  Constitution  do  the  familiar  terms  of  the  sup- 
porters of  the  theory,  such  as  "  compact,"  "  natural 
rights,"  "  sovereignty,"  etc.,  appear,  nor  are  they  often 
used  in  the  early  State  Constitutions,  nor  in  the  debates 
in  the  different  State  conventions  on  the  adoption  of  the 
United  States  Constitution. 

It  is  true  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  is  full 
of  its  "  glittering  generalities";  but  it  was  the  work  of 
Jefferson,  and  was  moreover,  in  my  opinion,  not  con- 
sidered of  the  same  importance  at  that  time,  as  at  present. 
The  people  of  all  the  different  States,  in  the  first  place, 
had  not  authorized  their  delegates  to  sign  it ;  the  act  of 
these  delegates  was  therefore  void.  Secondly,  many  of 
the  delegates  did  not  sign  until  long  after  the  date  of  the 
instrument,  and  some  not  at  all.  Thirdly,  the  States 
adopted  separate  declarations  of  independence  in  their 
State  conventions — which  were  clearly  not  considered 
superfluous.  Thus,  the  delegates  of  New  York  State  were 
not  authorized  to  sign  the  Declaration  of  Independence ; 
they  were   also  absent  from   Congress  at  that  time  and 


96' 

attending  the  State  Constitutional  Convention,  which 
they  apparently  considered  of  more  importance.  The 
New  York  State  Constitution,  recites  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  that  after  "most  serious  consideration,"  on 
July  9th,  1777,  they  had  unanimously  resolved  that  the 
reasons  assigned  therein  are  "  cogent  and  conclusive." 
"  This  convention,  therefore,  in  the  name  and  by  the 
authority  of  the  good  people  of  this  State  doth  ordain, 
determine  and  declare  that  no  authority  shall  on  any 
pretense  whatever  be  exercised  over  the  people  or  mem- 
bers of  this  State,  but  such  as  shall  be  derived  from  or 
granted  by  them." 

This  statement  shows  how  New  York  considered  the 
Declaration ;  its  simple,  manly  language  is  also  in  striking 
contrast  to  that  of  the  Declaration,  and  is  only  one 
example  of  how  little  that  line  of  thought  was  at  that 
time  appreciated  in  this  country.  In  fact  any  one  who 
will  read  the  speeches  and  writings  of  that  time  will  find 
but  few  traces  of  the  influence  of  the  social  contract 
theory.  The  "  Fathers"  went  straight  ahead  ;  they  knew 
what  they  wanted,  and  they  formed  a  typical  Germanic 
State,  consisting  of  ever  larger  associations  of  people, 
each  association  with  powers  to  preserve  the  interests  of 
its  members,  all  united  in  one  harmonious  whole.  The 
address  of  the  representatives  of  New  York  to  the  citi- 
zens of  the  State,  inciting  them  to  resist  Great  Britain, 
is  full  of  references  to  the  Bible  and  the  resistance  ot 
the  chosen  people  to  the  tyrants,  but  contains  no  refer- 
ence to  the  inalienable  rights  of  man  and  other  catch 
words  of  the  social  contract  school. 

When  then  did  the  social  contract  theory  make 
its  appearance?  It  was  Jefferson  who  brought 
it  back  with  him  from  Paris,  where  he  had  been 
during  the  formation  of  the  Constitution,  and  pre- 
sented,    as     his    gift    to     the     new-born    country,    the 


97 

Kentucky  and  Virginia  resolutions  of  1789 — like  the 
fairy  god-mother  who  was  not  invited  to  the  christen- 
ing, and  gave  the  spiteful  wish  which  condemned  the 
sleeping  beauty  to  her  hundred  years  sleep.  Only  in 
this  case,  the  fatal  gift  was  accompanied  by  no  warning ; 
the  poison  secretly  worked  its  way  into  our  country's 
system  ;  the  doctors  knew  not  what  the  evil  was  and 
hence  could  not  prescribe  for  it ;  four  years  of  bloody 
war  was  the  drastic  remedy  at  last  applied,  and  it  is 
doubtful  if  we  are  yet  free  from  its  effects. 

In  these  resolutions  we  have  the  theory  full  grown ; 
that  of  Virginia  declared  that  the  powers  of  the  Federal 
Government  resulted  from  the  compact  to  which  the 
States  are  parties  ;  that  of  Kentucky  further  declared  that 
"  as  in  all  other  cases  of  compact,  among  parties  having  no 
common  judge,  each  party  has  an  equal  right  to  judge  for 
itself,  as  well  of  infractions  as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of 
redress." 

I  know  that  the  Virginia  resolution  was  introduced  by 
Madison,  and  that  in  his  report  in  the  House  of  Delegates, 
(session  1 799-1 780)  on  the  Virginia  resolutions,  he  reiter- 
ated its  assertions  as  "  unexceptionably  true  in  its  several 
positions,  as,  well  as  constitutional  and  conclusive  in  its 
inferences." 

But  the  language  and  the  ideas  are  so  different  from 
those  of  the  Madison  who  worked  so  hard  for  the  Consti- 
tution in  the  Convention  and  in  the  Federalist,  that  they 
must  be  ascribed  to  the  influence  of  Jefferson,  even  if  the 
latter  had  not  acknowledged  that  he  consulted  with  Mad- 
ison about  it. 

Thus  in  the  Virginia  Convention  in  1788  (Vol.  III.  of 
Elliott's  Debates,  p.  532,)  Madison  contradicts  this  resolu- 
tion flatly  :  "  It  may  be  a  misfortune  that  in  organizing 
any  government,  the  explication  of  its  authority  should 
be  left  to  any  of  its  co-ordinate  branches.     .     .     .     With 


98 

respect  to  the  laws  of  the  Union,  it  is  so  necessary  and 
expedient  that  the  judicial  power  should  correspond  with 
the  legislative,  that  it  has  not  been  objected  to." 

The  extent  to  which  Jefferson  influenced  Madison  in 
regard  to  this  social  contract  theory,  and  the  extent  to 
which  he  was  himself  its  victim,  is  shown  by  a  letter  from 
Paris,  in  which  he  in  perfect  good  faith  carries  out  Rous- 
seau's theories  to  their  natural  consequences.  He  pro- 
poses what  he  declares  to  be  the  novel  question  of  how 
one  generation  can  bind  another ;  as  no  way  suggests 
itself  to  him,  he  concludes  that  it  is  impossible ;  therefore, 
since  according  to  Buff  on  each  generation  lasts  19  years, 
at  the  end  of  that  time  all  constitutions,  laws  and  national 
contracts  are  void,  and  revolution  and  bankruptcy  are  nec- 
essary and  legitimate.  He  suggests  to  Madison  that  he 
bring  forward  this  theory  publicly.  Madison  replied  that 
he  found  it  not  "  entirely  compatible  with  the  course  of 
human  events,"  and  declined  the  honor,  although  he  did 
not  deny  the  correctness  of  the  theory. 

As  is  well  known,  Calhoun,  when  he  proclaimed  the 
doctrine  of  nullification,  did  not  go  beyond  the  words  of 
these  resolutions,  and  the  Rebellion  was  only  applying 
them  practically. 

Jefferson  alone,  however,  could  not  have  introduced 
this  fatal  theory,  had  the  general  opinion  of  educated 
men  not  at  that  time  been  so  .attracted  by  it,  all  over  the 
civilized  world,  and  it  was  nourished  here  by  the  Franco 
mania,  which  so  long  held  sway  over  our  society,  and  by 
the  subsequent  desire  of  the  South  to  evade  the  true 
meaning  of  the  Constitution. 

So  far  as  suited  their  purposes,  the  Southerners  adopted 
Rousseau's  theory  completely,  only  they  substituted  the 
States  for  individuals,  and  claimed  for  them  the  same 
right  to  judge  whether  the  terms  of  the  compact,  which 
they  had   formed,  had   been  violated,  and  if  the   States 


99 

decided  that  it  had  been  violated,  they  had  the  same  right 
to  refuse  to  recognize  the  assumption  of  power  and  to 
declare  the  compact  ended ;  this,  as  Calhoun  claimed,  was 
perfectly  legal  and  was  no  rebellion ;  on  the  same  theory, 
Rousseau's  disciples  had  decapitated  Louis  XVI. 

The  opponents  of  nullification  had  unfortunately  no 
theory  to  oppose  to  this  social  compact  theory.  The 
hatred  of  England,  which  followed  the  war  of  1812,  pre- 
vented the  writings  of  Burke  from  gaining  much  credit ; 
the  later  State  constitutions  and  the  decisions  of  the 
courts  show  how  generally  the  social  compact  was  accept- 
ed, and  accepting  this  theory,  the  advocates  of  the  Con- 
stitution were  beaten,  as  a  foregone  conclusion. 

This  appears,  for  example,  in  the  great  debate  between 
Calhoun  and  Webster  on  nullification.  Calhoun's  resolu- 
tions were  a  somewhat  elaborate  reiteration  of  the  Vir- 
ginia and  Kentucky  resolutions  of  the  right  of  nullifica- 
tion, with  the  additional  assertion  that  the  people  of  these 
United  States  are  not  and  have  never  been  united  on  the 
principle  of  the  social  compact  and  formed  into  one  nation 
or  people. 

Webster  did  not  deny  that  this  was  the  only  principle 
on  which  governments  could  be  formed;  hence,  of  course, 
he  could  not  prove  that  the  United  States  were  a  nation ; 
he  relied  in  part  on  Hobbes'  theory  of  the  fearful  conse- 
quences of  dissolution  of  government,  and  in  part  on 
Kant's  and  Grotius'  theories  that  the  compact  having  been 
made,  something  unalterable  had  resulted  therefrom.  He 
says :  "  So  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  founded 
in  or  on  the  consent  of  the  people,  may  be  said  to  rest  on 
compact  or  consent ;  but  it  is  itself  not  the  compact  but 
its  result.  When  a  people  agree  to  erect  a  government 
and  actually  erect  it,  the  thing  is  done  and  the  agreement 
is  at  an  end." 

Calhoun,  in  his  reply,  disposed  of   these  assertions  as. 


lOO 

easily  as  Rousseau  did  of  those  of  Grotius  and  Kant ;  he 
said:  "  I  would  ask  to  what  compact  does  the  Senator 
refer  as  that  on  which  the  Constitution  rests  ?  What  can 
it  be  but  that  the  Constitution  is  itself  a  compact  ?  And 
how  will  his  language  read,  when  fairly  interpreted,  but 
that  the  Constitution  was  a  compact,  but  is  no  longer  a 
compact  ?  It  had  by  some  means  or  another,  changed 
its  nature  or  become  defunct." 

Calhoun  was  therefore  logically  correct.  If  the  gov- 
ernments can  only  be  formed  by  compact,  the  United 
,  States  government  was  plainly  not  formed  by  compact  of 
the  individuals  (because  they  had  voted  to  adopt  it,  only 
as  members  of  the  different  States),  hence  the  United 
States  government  could  be  formed  only  by  the  compact 
of  the  States ;  and,  if  so  formed,  each  State  had  the  right 
to  construe  the  compact   or  declare  it   at  an  end. 

The  doctrine  of  absolute  sovereignty,  which  always  re- 
sults from  the  social  compact  theory,  was  also  imported  to 
add  weight  to  these  conclusions.  It  was  a  necessary  conse- 
quence upon  which  all  writers,  Grotius  and  Kant,  as  well 
as  Hobbes  and  Rousseau,  agreed  that  there  must  be 
absolute  sovereignty  somewhere  ;  they  derived  this  idea 
from  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  and  the  only  question  was 
as  to  who  should  wield  it.  Calhoun  in  his  article  on  the 
United  States  Constitution,  says,  on  page  189  :  "  Its  (the 
revolution's)  first  and  necessary  effect  was  to  cut  the  cord 
which  had  bound  the  colonies  to  the  parent  country — 
to  extinguish  all  the  authority  of  the  latter — and  by  conse- 
quence to  convert  them  into  thirteen  independent  and  sover- 
eign States."  And  in  his  above  cited  speech  on  nullifica- 
tion, he  says :  "  The  whole  sovereignty  is  in  the  several 
States,  while  the  exercise  of  sovereign  power  is  divided — 
apart  being  exercised  under  compact,  through  the  gen- 
eral government,  and  the  residue  through  the  separate 
State  governments."     It  is  true  that  Calhoun  knew  of  the 


IOI 

true  nature  of  a  Germanic  State,  with  its  limited  govern- 
ment, as  he  cites  Palgrave  to  that  effect ;  but  he  applied 
this  necessity  of  limitation  only  to  United  States  gov- 
ernment, and  considered  the  States  as  sovereign. 

The  theory  was  carried  out  practically  when  the  con- 
stitutional conventions  of  the  Southern  States  forced  their 
States,  often  by  small  majorities,  into  the  Rebellion.  As 
Yancey  said,  in  the  Alabama  convention  of  1861  :  "  But 
in  this  body  is  all  power,  no  powers  are  reserved  from  it. 
The  people  are  here  in  the  persons  of  their  deputies.  Life, 
liberty  and  property  are  in  our  hands.  All  our  acts  are 
sumpreme  without  ratification,  because  they  are  the  acts 
of  the  people  acting  in  their  sovereign  capacity."  Rous- 
seau might  have  said  that. 

The  reason  why  Rousseau  was  so  seldom  quoted  was 
that  he  had  followed  out  his  principles  to  their  natural 
consequences,  which  included  the  abolition  of  slavery. 
When  arguing  on  this  point,  Calhoun  adopted  the  strong- 
est language  of  Grotius  and  Kant.  For  example, 
in  his  Disquisition  on  Government,  he  says !  "  Men  are 
born  in  the  social  and  political  state ;  and  of  course, 
instead  of  being  born  free  and  equal,  are  born  subject,  not 
only  to  parental  authority,  but  to  the  laws  and  institutions 
of  the  country  where  born,  and  under  whose  protection 
they  draw  their  first  breath."  For  a  similar  reason,  the 
Northern  men  did  not  cite  Rousseau's  writings  so  often 
in  their  conflict  against  slavery,  because  they  seemed  to 
uphold  so  strongly  the  States'  rights  doctrine. 

The  upholders  of  the  Union  made  here  again  the  fatal 
mistake  of  recognizing  the  necessity  of  absolute  sover- 
eignty ;  if  it  exists,  the  United  States  has  it  not,  nor  have 
the  people  it,  since  it  is  an  absurdity  to  talk  of  absolute 
sovereignty  over  oneself — the  States  certainly  have  the 
best  claim  to  it.  This  admission  is  a  mistake,  which  has 
lately  been  encouraged   by  the  influence   of  Austin  and 


102 

Bentham,  who  derived  the  idea  from  Hobbes.  J.  C.  Hurd 
in  his  Theory  of  Our  National  Existence,  and  most  of  the 
judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  since  the  war,  vainly  labor 
to  justify  the  acts  of  the  North,  by  proving  in  some  way 
the  existence  of  sovereignty  of  the  United  States  govern- 
ment, or  of  the  people. 

It  cannot  be  done,  because  the  Constitution  and  the 
men  who  framed  it  would  have  none  of  it ;  they  formed 
a  simple  natural  Germanic  State,  wherein  the  individ- 
uals grouped  themselves  into  associations  of  different 
sizes,  and  endowed  each  association  with  the  powers  nec- 
essary to  protect  the  interests,  for  whose  protection  that 
association  was  formed ;  and  this  system  they  did  not  in- 
tend, and  would  not  allow  to  be  broken  up,  by  any  of  its 
members,  who  had  entered  it  and  accepted  its  benefits. 

The  idea  of  "  sovereignty  of  the  Nation  "  is  as  hostile  to 
the  real  spirit  of  our  institutions  as  was  that  of  "  sover- 
eignty of  the  State  ;"  both  are  equally  un-Germanic  and 
un-American.  The'  worship  of  Nationality  was  devel- 
oped by  Napoleon  I.  to  hide  his  overthrow  of  the  Re- 
public. 

Our  trouble  has  been  that  after  our  natural  government 
was  formed,  the  attempt  was  made  to  explain  it  by  the 
terms  of  the  social  contract  theory  and  to  import  into  it 
ideas  derived  from  the  absolute  governments  of  Rome 
and  Greece,  with  the  consequent  ignoring  of  all  constitu- 
tional rights. 

What  we  need  is  to  carry  out  the  spirit  of  our  Constitu- 
tion. We  are  no  longer  merely  an  agricultural  people, 
divided  as  to  our  interests,  chiefly  by  geographical  posi- 
tion, into  towns,  counties  and  States,  but  large  cities  have 
come  into  being,  where  men  know  each  other,  not  as 
residents  of  the  same  ward,  or  district,  but  as  members  of 
the  same  trade,  business  or  profession ;  these  associations, 
with    different  common  interests,  should   be   recognized 


103 

politically,  and  receive  a  proper  share  of  the  powers  and 
duties  of  government,  so  that  they  may  provide  for  and 
protect  their  interests. 

That  would  be  carrying  out  the  federal  spirit  of  our  Con- 
stitution, and  would  secure  us  as  long  a  lease  of  prosperity 
as  we  might  have  enjoyed  under  our  present  Constitution 
intended  for  agricultural  communities,  had  its  real  mean- 
ing not  been  perverted  by  the  introduction  of  the  social 
contract  theory,  that  blight  of  our  modern  political 
development. 

IV. 

Let  us  now  consider  briefly  the  influence  of  this  theory 
on  the  principal  writers  of  political  economy. 

The  idea  of  an  absolute  government,  fostered  by  the 
social  contract  theory,  produced  the  mercantile  system, 
in  which  government  considered  it  as  its  duty  to  regulate 
all  industries  of  the  country.  Adam  Smith  led  the  reac- 
tion against  this  paternal  government  plan  ;  in  his  Wealth 
of  Nations  he  says :  "  All  systems  either  of  prefer- 
ence or  of  restraint  being  thus  completely  taken  away 
the  obvious  and  simple  system  of  natural  liberty  estab- 
lishes itself  of  its  own  accord.  Every  man  is  left  per- 
fectly free  to  pursue  his  own  interest  his  own  way.  .  . 
According  to  the  system  of  natural  liberty  the  sovereign 
has  only  three  duties  to  perform :  ist.  To  ward  off 
foreign  invasion.  2d.  To  administer  justice.  3d.  To 
erect  public  works,  which  it  would  not  be  for  the  interest 
of  a  small  number  of  individuals  to  erect."  (Book  V., 
Ch.  9.) 

This  system  of  "  natural  liberty,"  or  laissez-faire  as  it 
was  afterward  called,  was  the  natural  result  of  Grotius' 
deification  of  the  human  reason.  If  that  was  sufficient  to 
originate  governments  it  must  also  be  sufficient  to  dis- 


104 

cover  the  best  and  only  right  manner  of  conducting 
private  business  enterprises ;  and,  as  the  right  to  govern 
depends  theoretically  upon  the  consent  of  the  individual, 
and  as  this  consent  is  so  difficult  to  prove,  the  right  must 
be  exerted  as  rarely  as  possible. 

It  was  seen  that  the  State  interfered  too  much  with  the 
individual  upon  the  Continent,  hence  this  school  flew  to 
the  opposite  extreme,  that  the  "enlightened  reason"  of 
the  individual  must  be  considered  as  all-sufficient.  It  was 
applying  the  same  reasoning  to  the  business  of  indi- 
viduals which  Rousseau  had  applied  to  public  affairs. 

These  ideas  are  not  all  acknowledged  by  Adam  Smith, 
but  they  are  evidently  the  motives  which  led  to  the  adop- 
tion of  his  theory,  and  they  are  plainly  declared  by  his 
followers.  Thus,  Bentham  savs  in  his  "  Principles  of 
Legislation"  (I.,  p.  32):  "  Every  one  makes  himself  the 
judge  of  his  own  utility  ;  such  is  the  fact,  and  such  it 
ought  to  be ;  otherwise  man  would  not  be  a  rational 
agent." 

And  John  Stuart  Mill,  in  his  "  Political  Economy,"  in 
his  second  volume,  p.  515,  says  :  "  Unless  the  conscience 
of  the  individual  goes  freely  with  the  legal  restraint  it 
partakes  either  in  great  or  in  small  degree  of  the  degra- 
dation of  slavery.  Scarcely  any  degree  of  utility,  short 
of  absolute  necessity,  will  justify  a  prohibitory  regulation, 
unless  it  can  be  made  to  recommend  itself  to  the  general 
conscience."  ..."  Laissez-faire  should  be  the  gen- 
eral practice"  (p.  524).  Mill  distinctly  adopts  the 
social  contract  theory  as  a  necessary  hypothesis.  In  his 
first  volume  (p.  244)  he  says:  "  In  considering  the  institu- 
tion of  property  we  may  suppose  a  community  un- 
hampered (?)  by  any  previous  possession  .... 
bringing  nothing  with  them  but  what  belonged  in  com- 
mon, and  having  a  clear  field  for  the  adoption  of  the 
institutions   and   polity   which   they  judged   most  expe- 


io5 

client."  Of  course,  Mill,  no  more  than  any  of  the  other 
writers,  can  point  to  a  time  or  place  when  this  occurred ; 
his  whole  argument  has,  therefore,  the  same  value  as  those 
of  the  astronomers  before  Kepler's  time,  who  based  their 
conclusions  upon  various  ingenious  hypotheses,  but  not 
upon  facts. 

Mr.  Mill  illogically  considers  the  rights  of  property- 
owners  of  things  personal  to  be  absolute  and  inviolable, 
but  he  applies  Proudhon's  arguments  to  the  ownership  of 
land,  and  demands  the  confiscation  of  the "  unearned  in- 
crement." 

Mr.  Mill  is  naturally  opposed  to  trades-unions;  thus  he 
says  in  Book II.,  Ch.  XIV.,  §6,  of  his  Political  Economy: 
"  The  time,  however,  is  past  when  the  friends  of  human 
improvement  can  look  with  complacency  on  the  attempts 
of  small  sections  of  the  community,  whether  belonging  to 
the  laboring  or  any  other  class,  to  organize  a  separate 
class  interest  in  antagonism  to  the  general  body  of  labor- 
ers." In  his  celebrated  theory  that  wages  are  regulated 
by  the  law  of  supply  and  demand,  he  passes  by  the  unions 
as  an  unimportant  factor.  For  this  he  was  taken  to  task 
by  W.  T.  Thornton  in  his  book  "On  Labor"  (London,  1 869), 
who  says :  "  Enough,  it  is  hoped,  has  now  been  said  to 
justify  the  further  assertion  that,  in  the  actual  condition 
of  the  world,  unionism  is  to  the  employed  in  a  double 
sense  a  necessity.  It  is  indispensable  alike  for  their  pro- 
tection and  for  their  advancement"  (p.  300). 

Mr.  Thornton,  however,  did  not  free  himself  from  the 
prejudices  of  this  English  school  against  trades-unions ; 
thus  he  says  on  p.  335  :  "  Still,  even  when  so  modified  and 
chastened,  the  necessity  for  its  continuing  to  exist  at  all 
will  continue  to  be  an  evil."  The  reason  for  this  opinion 
is  found  in  that  Mr.  Thornton,  although  he  describes  so 
eloquently  the  hardships  of  a  workingman's  life,  fails  to 
see  that   there  is  any  question  of  justice  in  the  relations 


lo6 

between  employers  and  employees.  He  says  on  p.  122; 
"  Employers  can  equally,  without  injustice,  accept  the 
services  of  laborers  on  the  very  lowest  terms  to  which  the 
latter  can  voluntarily  and  with  their  eyes  open  be  brought 
to  submit.  Neither  party  possesses  any  relative  rights  in 
the  business  except  those  which  arise  out  of  their  mutual 
agreement  or  contract.  Whatever  else  that  contract  may 
be,  it  cannot  be  iniquitous."  Mr.  Thornton  very  logically 
expects  no  consideration,  on  the  other  hand,  from  the 
trades-unions  should  they  come  into  power,  and  conse- 
quently does  not  object  to  having  them  called  a  necessary 
evil.  Mr.  Mill,  in  an  article  in  the  Fortnightly  Review  for 
M%ay,  1869,  was  forced  to  acknowledge  in  effect  the  per- 
tinency of  Mr.  Thornton's  criticism,  and  quotes  with  evi- 
dent approval  many  of  the  latter's  remarks  concerning 
the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  trades-unions,  although  he 
does  not  in  terms  retract  his  theory  of  supply  and  demand 
as  being  the  proper  rule  to  govern  the  contracts  between 
employers  and  employees. 

Professor  Cairnes,  in  his  Political  Economy  (1874), 
practically  reasserted  Mr.  Mill's  heartless  theory.  He 
says  on  p.  263 :  "  I  am  unaware  of  any  rule  ot  justice  ap- 
plicable to  the  problem  of  distributing  the  produce  of  in- 
dustry ;  and,  secondly,  that  any  attempt  to  give  effect  to 
what  are  considered  the  dictates  of  justice  which  should 
involve  as  a  means  towards  that  end  a  disturbance  of  the 
fundamental  assumptions  on  which  economic  reasoning 
is  based — more  especially  those  of  the  right  of  private 
property  and  the  freedom  of  individual  industry — would, 
in  my  opinion,  putting  all  other  than  material  considera- 
tions aside,  be  inevitably  followed  by  the  destruction  or 
indefinite  curtailment  of  the  fund  itself  from  which  the 
remuneration  ot  all  classes  is  derived." 

I  will  only  refer  to  one  other  thorough-going  supporter 
of  the  laissez-faire   system — Professor  Sumner  of  Yale — 


who  cannot  fail  to  be  an  interesting  figure  as  probably 
one  of  the  last  of  his  race.  In  his  last  book,  "  What 
Social  Classes  Owe  to  Each  Other,"  he  says  :  "  In  our 
modern  state,  and  in  the  United  States  more  than  any- 
where else,  the  social  structure  is  based  on  contract ; 
status  is  of  the  least  importance.  Contract,  however,  is 
rational — even  rationalistic.  In  a  state  based  on  contract 
sentiment  is  out  of  place  in  any  public  or  common  affairs 
(p.  25).  ...  It  follows,  however,  that  one  man  in  a 
free  state  cannot  claim  help  from  and  cannot  be  charged 
to  give  help  to  another  (p.  27).  .  .  .  The  relations  of 
sympathy  and  sentiment  are  essentially  limited  to  two 
persons  only,  and  they  cannot  be  made  a  basis  for  the  re- 
lations of  groups  of  persons  or  for  discussion  by  any  third 
party  (p.  160).  .  .  .  There  is  no  injunction,  no 'ought ' 
in  political  economy  at  all  "  (p.  156). 

The  great  fault  of  this  school  lies  in  its  undue  exalta- 
tion of  the  individual,  which  followed  as  a  natural  re- 
action against  the  undue  exaltation  of  the  State ;  but  this 
is  as  un-Germanic,  as  unsuited  to  the  wants  of  our 
people  as  the  former  extreme.  The  present  natural 
organization  of  a  Germanic  people  is  in  many  corpora- 
tions, from  the  guild  or  trade-union  up  to  the  State,  each 
of  these  having  limited,  independent  duties  to  perform, 
corresponding  to  the  interests  which  the  members  of 
each  corporation  have  in  common ;  among  these  corpora- 
tions the  State  is  the  highest  and  last,  but  by  no  means 
the  omnipotent  or  sole  union. 

The  Germanic  system  of  many  organizations  inter- 
mediate between  the  State  and  the  individual,  is  re- 
ferred to  by  Tacitus,  as  a  characteristic  of  the 
primitive  Germans  in  their  native  forests.  It  was 
by  means  of  these  comitatus  that  the  enervated  and 
depraved  provinces  of  the  Roman  empire  were  con- 
quered and   divided  into  towns  and  counties ;  it  was  by 


I  oS 

means  of  these  agricultural  unions,  which  subsequently 
grew  into  the  feudal  system,  that  Europe  was  preserved 
during  the  middle  ages  from  destruction  by  the  ferocious 
Norsemen  and  the  victorious  Arabs ;  it  was  by  means  of 
similar  unions  or  guilds  when  great  cities  began  to  spring 
up  that  these  grew  up  and  were  able.to  defend  themselves 
against  their  many  enemies.  And  it  was  the  destruction 
of  the  system  in  England  under  Henry  VIII.,  which 
made  the  introduction  of  the  Roman  theory  of  an  absolute 
government  possible.  How  great  a  part  these  guilds 
played  in  European  history  is  only  now  being  recog- 
nized ;  Toulmin  Smith's  collection  of  charters  shows  how 
much  of  the  work  of  our  civilization  was  done  through 
these  organizations. 

The  principal  evil  effect  of  this  social  contract  theory 
was,  as  above  stated,  that  it  left  no  place  for  these  inter- 
mediate associations,  but  considered  only  the  powerless 
individual  and  the  almighty  State,  and  up  to  the  time  of 
Rousseau  delivered  the  former  helplessly  into  the  hands 
of  the  latter,  although  it  recognized  that,  like  Franken- 
stein's monster,  the  individual  had  produced  this  almighty 
State. 

The  reaction  of  the  Manchester  school  in  private 
affairs,  and  of  Rousseau's  school  in  public  affairs,  has 
made  this  mistake  ;  it  has  gone  too  far ;  it  denies  the  power 
of  the  State,  but  supplies  no  other  form  of  union  for 
individuals  to  follow  out  their  common  interests.  Mill 
says :  "  The  unit  of  society  is  not  the  family  or  clan 
.  .  .  .  but  the  individual"  (vol.  I.,  p.  262).  Thus 
Bentham  says  in  his  Principles  of  Legislation  (I.,  83): 
"  As  a  general  rule  the  greatest  possible  latitude  should 
be  left  to  individuals,  in  all  cases  in  which  they  can  injure 
none  but  themselves — for  they  are  the  best  judges  of  their 
own  intetests."  The  effects  of  this  policy  are  more  un- 
fortunate  in   heterogeneous   nations   (if   I   may  so  name 


io9 

nations  composed  of  various  races)  like  the  French,  than 
in  more  homogeneous  nations  like  the  English  or  German 
because  where  a  nation  is  composed  of  men  of  one  stock, 
the  theory  of  their  equality  is  practically  nearer  the  truth. 
But  it  is  a  crime  and  a  wicked  deed  to  tell  men  they  are 
equal,  when  the  doctrines  of  heredity  show  that  different 
races  of  men  have  different  capacities,  which  to  a  great 
measure  necessarily  fix  their  mode  of  life.  To  tell  such 
different  men  that  they  are  equal,  is  like  telling  a  man 
who  never  was  in  deep  water,  to  plunge  off  a  dock  with- 
out a  life  preserver,  because,  being  a  man,  he  must  be 
•equal  to  yonder  expert  swimmer. 

From  my  reference  to  the  difference  of  races  of 
men  and  the  doctrine  of  heredity,  I  would  not  have  it 
inferred  that  I  in  any  way  adopt  Herbert  Spencer's  the- 
ory that  man  is  but  a  higher  gregarious  animal.  His 
whole  theory  rests  on  the  assumption  that  the  Darwinian 
theory  is  proved  ;  but  I  do  not  see  how  any  man,  certainly 
no  lawyer,  accustomed  to  distinguish  assertions  from  evi- 
dence, can  read  the  books  of  this  school  carefully  without 
coming  to  the  conclusion  that  they  fail  to  make  out  a  case; 
that  there  is  not  a  missing  link,  but  that  every  other  link 
is  missing,  so  that  there  is  not  the  vestige  of  a  chain. 
This  absence  of  evidence  is  explained  in  various  ways — 
that  it  perished  millions  of  years  ago  or  exists  in  the 
centre  of  Africa  or  Asia ;  but  these  explanations  are  not 
sufficient  to  take  the  place  of  the  evidence  and  prove 
their  case.  If  Herbert  Spencer's  theory  were  cor- 
rect, it  is  then  of  no  possible  interest  to  us  how  the  State 
is  formed,  any  more  than  it  is  to  the  particles  of  matter 
which  are  about  to  be  formed  into  a  crystal,  to  which  he 
compares  the  State.  If  the  survival  of  the  fittest  is  the 
law  by  which  men  are  governed,  then  let  us  all  take  to 
ourselves  the  advice  of  the  old  man  in  Horace :  "  Make 
money ;  honestly,  if  you  can — but  make  money !  " 


no 

Spencer's  political  works  remind  me  of  the  man  who 
was  going  to  make  a  great  jump ;  but  he  went  back  so 
far  to  get  a  start,  that  he  ran  over  a  hill  before  he  jumped. 
Spencer,  in  my  humble  opinion,  is  just  starting  up  the  hill. 
He  tries  to  explain  the  action  of  men  by  the  study  of  the 
roots  of  a  potato  plant ;  he  says  in  his  Data  of  Ethics 
(p.  96) :  "  Here  might  be  urged  the  necessity  for  prelud- 
ing the  study  of  moral  science  by  the  study  of  biological 
science."  At  all  events,  we  can  safely  leave  this  "triangu- 
lation  of  the  universe,"  this  philosophy  of  the  future,  to 
the  future. 

No  country  is  so  heterogeneous  as  the  United  States, 
although  the  great  majority  belong  to  different  families 
of  the  Germanic  race ;  in  no  country  has  the  system  of 
individualism  been  carried  to  such  an  extent ;  in  no  coun- 
try has  the  doctrine  of  equality  been  more  productive  of 
inequality,  considering  the  brief  time  of  the  development 
of  our  industries.  To  tell  you  or  me  that  we  are  on  an 
equality  with  Vanderbilt  before  the  law,  is  telling  us  what 
we  know  to  be  untrue. 

Before  the  tariff,  which  the  war  necessitated,  we 
were  chiefly  an  agricultural  community ;  the  division 
according  to  our  abodes  into  towns,  counties  and 
states,  was  proper  and  Germanic.  Since,  then,  large 
cities  have  grown  up,  with  the  balance  of  power  in  the 
hands  of  great  working  populations,  we  should  follow 
the  Germanic  precedent,  set  to  us  in  the  13th,  14th  and 
15th  centuries,  and  have  these  workingmen,  and  business 
men  and  all  professions  organized  to  look  after  their  com- 
mon interests.  They  will  protect  themselves  ;  they  will 
prevent  tramps  and  loafers  stealing  the  results  of  their 
labors ;  they  will  check  the  arrogance  of  our  railroad 
barons  far  better  than  either  the  absolute  State  or  the  in- 
dividual can  do.  This  theory  of  limited  sovereignty  and 
unions  intermediate  between  the  individual  and  the  State, 


n  i 


I  believe  to  be  the  solution  of  the  most  pressing  problem 
of  the  day,  in  political  economy  as  well  as  in  politics. 

The  late  W.  Stanley  Jevons,  in  his  "  State  in  Relation 
to  Labor  "  (1883),  fully  recognizes  this  necessity.  He  says 
on  p.  6  of  the  introduction :  "  One  result  which  clearly 
emerges  from  a  calm  review  is  that  all  classes  of  society 
are  trades-unionists  at  heart,  and  differ  chiefly  in  the  bold- 
ness, ability  and  secrecy  with  which  they  push  their  re- 
spective interests." 

But,  like  the  other  English  economists,  he  looks  back 
to  the  theory  of  co-operation  (in  spite  of  all  its  practical 
failures)  as  a  desideratum  for  laborers  ;  so.that,  although 
the  book  last  cited  contains  much  that  is  suggestive, 
the  whole  subject  of  the  proper  future  development  of 
these  trade  organizations  and  their  place  in  the  State  re- 
mains a  sealed  book  to  the  English  economists,  as  well  as 
to  their  great  authorities  on  the  history  and  theory  of  law 
and  politics — dominated  as  they  have  been  by  the  atheistic 
tendencies  of  Bentham  and  Mill. 

From  this  brief  statement  of  the  positions  of  our  prin- 
cipal authorities  in  law,  politics,  and  political  econ- 
omy, who  based  their  theories,  tacitly  or  confessedly, 
directly  on  the  social  contract  theory,  and  ultimately 
upon  the  belief  in  the  arbitrary  creation  of  law  by  man, 
we  are  justified  in  concluding  that  these  theories  practi- 
cally lead,  in  politics,  to  the  advocacy  of  absolute  sover- 
eignty and  the  destruction  of  the  lesser  organizations 
existing  between  the  individual  and  the  State,  and  the 
substitution  of  an  absolute  unconstitutional  government 
of  the  masses  or  of  an  emperor.  Moreover,  in  political 
economy  we  must  see  that  these  same  theories  lead  either 
to  communism  or  to  the  entire  independence  of  the  indi- 
vidual in  business  affairs  from  the  dictates  of  morality, 
and  the  denial  of  the  propriety  of  any  organization  placing 
a  limit  upon  the  degradation  to  which  human  beings  may 


112 

reduce  themselves  or  others,  and  that  in  law  they  lead  to 
reckless  attempts  to  create  the  whole  social  fabric  anew, 
by  voluminous  codes,  and  to  insisting  upon  all  principles 
of  law  being  cast  in  the  unbending  form  of  statutes,  no 
matter  how  many  individual  cases  may  be  decided 
unjustly  in  consequence. 

Meanwhile,  the  advocates  of  these  theories  are  forced 
to  confess  that  the  present  result  of  their  propaganda  has 
not  been  satisfactory,  that  the  outlook  is  lowering,  and 
that  they  have  no  remedy  to  offer,  except  maintaining  the 
same  course. 

That  the  conclusions  of  this  school  are  hostile  to  the 
spirit  of  the  teachings  of  the  Fathers  who  formed  our 
Government,  as  indicated  by  the  extracts  from  the  Fed- 
eralist at  the  head  of  this  article,  is  apparent. 

Is  there  any  doctrine  as  to  the  origin  of  law  which 
justifies  these  theories  of  Federalism,  and  have  they  any 
application  to  the  present  ?  In  England,  France  and  Ger- 
many the  three  great  champions  of  what  we  have  vent- 
ured to  call  Federalism  were  Burke,  Montesquieu  and 
Stahl.  Burke,  that  great  admirer  of  our  American  Fed- 
eral Government,  declared  in  his  speech  against  Warren 
Hastings  :  "  No  man  can  lawfully  govern  himself  accord- 
ing to  his  own  will ;  much  less  can  one  person  be  gov- 
erned by  the  will  of  another.  We  are  all  born  in  subjec- 
tion, all  born  equally  high  and  low,  governors  and 
governed  in  subjection  to  one  great,  immutable,  pre- 
existent  law,  prior  to  all  our  devices,  and  prior  to  all  our 
contrivances.  This  great  law  does  not  arise  from  our 
conventions  and  compacts ;  on  the  contrary,  it  gives  to 
our  conventions  and  compacts  all  the  force  and  sanction 
they  can  have." 

The  same  spirit  was  represented  in  Fraflce  by  Montes- 
quieu, in  the  words :  "  Laws  are  the  necessary  relations 
which  spring  from  the  nature  of  things.     .     .     .     Before 


H3 

there  were  intelligent  beings,  these  beings  were  possible ; 
they  had,  therefore,  relations  and,  consequently,  possibly 
laws.  .  .  .  God  made  these  laws  because  they  have  a 
relation  to  His  wisdom  and  power." 

In  Germany,  Stahl  in  his  "  Philosophy  of  Law  (vol.  II., 
p.  219),  declared  :  "  The  prototype  of  law  is  God's  plan  of 
creation,  as  the  ideal  of  the  beautiful  in  the  human  form 
is  the  standard  which  guides  the  sculptor  and  in  compari- 
son with  which  his  work  is  judged." 

Federalism,  in  my  opinion,  must  be  based  on  the  opin- 
ion that  the  spring  of  law  lies,  not  in  human  reason  or  in 
human  fear,  but  in  the  sympathy  for  our  neighbor,  which 
God  has  given  us. 

It  is  the  teaching  of  Christianity  in  the  parable  of  the 
unjust  servant,  of  whom  his  fellow  servants  complained 
to  their  master  for  his  harshness  towards  one  of  their 
number,  and  whom  the  master  then  punished  so  severely. 

Do  we  not  all  feel  that  if  we  were  placed  in  a  position 
in  which  all  our  physical  wants  were  satisfied,  and  yet 
saw  one  of  our  fellow-beings  constantly  maltreated  that 
we  would  sacrifice  some  of  our  material  comforts,  in  the 
first  place,  to  relieve  his  sufferings,  and  then  to  punish  the 
man  who  had  inflicted  these  sufferings  ? 

The  true  measure  of  civilization  is  the  extent  of  this 
feeling  of  sympathy,  and  the  great  impulse  to  improve- 
ment in  civilization  is  its  development. 

The  mere  statement  of  the  penalty  to  be  inflicted  on 
the  man  who  commits  a  certain  act  is  not  the  whole  law; 
that  is  only  the  prohibitory  or  negative  side.  Law  con- 
sists in  the  will  of  a  people  that  individuals  should  show, 
by  their  acts,  that  they  have  a  certain  amount  of  sym- 
pathy towards  each  other,  in  the  various  relations  of  life. 
Law  is,  therefore,  positive  and  mandatory;  it  prescribes 
the  rules  which  individuals  should  observe  towards  each 
other,  in  their  relations  of  owner,  employer,  contractor, 
husband  or  wife,  parent  or  child. 


ii4 

The  only  way  to  accomplish  the  object  of  law  is  to  go 
further  back  than  the  legislature  or  the  police  courts,  and 
develop  in  man  that  sympathy  which  will  gradually 
make  law  unnecessary ;  as  in  medicine,  the  great  aim  of 
modern  science  is  to  keep  men  healthy,  rather  than  to 
cure  them  by  noxious  doses,  after  the  disease  is  incurred. 
The  State  cannot  disregard  the  development  of  the  eth- 
ical side  of  the  character  of  its  citizens — increase  of  sym- 
pathy decreases  crime. 

But  man  need  not  seek  in  theories,  founding  law  upon 
what  may  have  happened  in  pseudo-prehistoric  times,  for 
an  excuse  to  justify  his  insisting  upon  the  exercise  of  a 
certain  amount  of  sympathy  by  his  fellow-men  towards 
each  other,  if  he  believes  that  this  desire  is  given  him  by 
God,  and  intended  to  be  the  means  by  which  he  prepares 
himself  and  others  for  a  future  life.  If  a  man  loves  not 
his  brother,  whom  he  has  seen,  how  can  he  love  God, 
whom  he  has  not  seen  ? 

Our  object  here  should  be  to  realize  the  brotherhood 
of  man.  We  can  work  for  this  by  developing  our  sym- 
pathy for  each  other  as  individuals,  or  as  members  of  our 
various  trades  or  professions,  or  as  members  of  the  State. 

Primitive  man  has  this  sympathy  towards  the  members 
of  his  immediate  family;  tribes  are  formed  by  the  exten- 
sion of  this  sympathy  to  related  families ;  the  Germanic 
comitatus,  the  feudal  system,  the  guilds  of  the  middle 
ages  are  but  products  of  this  extended  feeling  of  sympathy 
to  individuals,  with  whom  we  are  thrown  together  in 
common  undertakings.  By  sympathy  I  mean  here  such 
as  shows  itself  not  in  words  but  in  deeds;  people  at  differ- 
ent stages  of  their  development  have  their  power  of 
sympathy  necessarily  differently  developed ;  they  cannot 
extend  it  at  will  to  embrace  further  circles. 

These  organizations,  intermediate  between  the  individ- 
ual and  the  State,  have  therefore  objects  to  accomplish 


"5 

arising  from  love  of  neighbor  as  well  as  the  individual 
or  the  State. 

The  great  misfortune  which  the  social  contract  theory 
brought  with  it,  as  I  have  already  stated,  was  the  abolition 
of  the  guilds  and  feudal  and  corporative  ties,  by  which 
Germanic  Europe  was  then  bound  together  into  smaller 
bodies,  and  the  attempt  to  substitute  for  this  sympathy  the 
feeling  of  nationality,  which  the  Greeks  had  developed  for 
their  small  cities  and  which  was  not  applicable  to  large, 
thinly  peopled  countries. 

The  Germanic  race  at  that  time  was  not  able  to  send 
forth  this  sympathy.  Rousseau  and  his  followers  called 
in  vain  for  fraternity  ;  they  could  possibly  produce  liberty 
and  equality,  but  fraternity  lay  in  the  human  will,  and  that 
they  could  not  touch.  But  while  they  did  not  accomplish 
their  object  they  managed  to  abolish  instead  of  reforming 
the  intermediate  associations  between  the  State  and  indi- 
vidual, within  which  the  people  at  that  time  had  sym- 
pathy. 

This  sympathy — from  which  springs  this  desire  to 
avenge  the  injuries  of  others — is,  therefore,  the  root  of 
all  organizations  of  men  into  guilds,  corporations  and 
States.  It  is  the  origin  of  all  law ;  and,  as  it  extends  to 
wider  circles,  families,  tribes,  guilds,  cities  and  States  are 
organized. 

The  injuries  to  be  avenged,  and  the  extent  of  the 
vengeance,  should  depend  upon  the  development  of  the 
feeling  of  sympathy  in  that  particular  people. 

If  the  law  does  not  correspond  to  and  satisfy  this  want, 
people  will  satisfy  the  craving  without  resorting  to  law, 
in  the  same  way  as  they  would  satisfy  their  physical 
wants  of  hunger  and  thirst.  There  is  no  essential  differ- 
ence between  criminal  law  and  civil  law ;  the  redress  of 
the  wrongs  to  which  the  latter  apply  is  merely  left  to 
the  initiative  of  the  party  injured.    The  crimes  to  be 


Ii6 

punished,  and  the  penalties  to  be  imposed,  should,  there- 
fore, be  considered  as  carefully,  with  reference  to  the 
particular  wants  of  a  people,  as  its  food  or  water  supply. 

If  punishments  are  too  low,  people  will  resort  to  Lynch 
law,  or  personal  revenge.  A  large  portion  of  crime, 
which  our  courts  vpunish,  is  due  to  bad  criminal  and  civil 
law. 

And  yet,  to-day,  no  public  indignation  is  visited  upon 
our  so-called  representatives  at  Albany,  when  they,  year 
after  year,  pass  voluminous  statutes,  called  codes,  pur- 
porting to  regulate  the  satisfaction  of  this  most  import- 
ant want  of  our  nature,  without  inquiry  or  discussion; 
although  the  greatest  interest  is  taken  by  the  public  in 
a  bill  affecting  our  water  supply,  street  cars,  or  other 
physical  want. 

As  before  stated,  I  believe  that  this  indifference  is 
largely  due  to  the  opinion  that  laws  are  purely  human 
creations,  originating  from  man's  unaided  reason,  and 
which  he  may,  with  propriety,  change  at  pleasure,  in 
place  of  the  belief  that  they  should  be  in  accord  with 
eternal  principles  of  justice,  applicable  to  human  rela- 
tions, which  it  is  man's  highest  privilege  and  duty  to 
study,  ascertain  and  apply. 

It  follows  also  in  politics,  that  the  whim  of  a  temporary 
majority  of  a  people  is  not  infallible,  but  that  the  great 
principles  which  a  race  is  seeking  to  realize  should  be 
placed  permanently  in  well-guarded  constitutions,  and 
that  men  should  yield  absolute  government  over  them- 
selves, or  sovereignty,  to  no  individual  or  number  of  indi- 
viduals, irrespective  of  these  eternal  principles  of  right 
and  wrong. 

It  follows,  also,  in  political  economy,  that  we  are  not 
justified  in  permitting  any  system  of  business  methods 
which  steadily  reduces  its  employees  to  conditions  which 
prevent  their  physical  and  moral  development,  and  their 


ii7 

spiritual  preparation  for  a  life  in  the  world  to  come  ;  and 
also  that  the  existence  and  participation  in  government 
of  organizations  which  prevent  men  from  not  only  de- 
stroying themselves  or  others,  but  from  making  them- 
selves or  others  physical  or  moral  plague  spots,  is  perfectly 
justified. 

An  unprejudiced  and  careful  examination  of  the  authors, 
above  briefly  referred  to,  can,  as  I  believe,  lead  only  to 
the  conclusion  that  all  theories  are  insufficient  if  they 
do  not  acknowledge  that  the  lear  of  the  Lord  is  the  begin- 
ning of  wisdom 

In  the  words  of  Plutarch :  "  It  is  easier  to  build  a  city 
without  foundations,  than  a  State  without  a  God." 

In  the  words  of  Maurice:  <:  The  Apostles  did  not  dare, 
they  did  not  find  it  possible  to  think  of  human  society, 
except  as  constituted  in  Christ.  It  was  the  confusion,  the 
unbelief  of  men,  to  regard  themselves  as  capable  of  fel- 
lowship and  of  existence  without  him.  It  was  theirs  to 
proclaim  that  there  could  be  no  families,  no  nations,  to 
resist  the  selfish  tendencies,  which  each  of  us  is  conscious 
in  himself,  and  complains  of  in  his  neighbors,  if  there  had 
not  been  one  living  centre  of  the  whole  body  of  humanity, 
one  head  of  every  man." 


Il8 


UNIVERSAL  SUFFRAGE  IN  CITIES. 


LAST  spring,  when  the  great  Statue  of  Liberty  arrived 
*j  in  this  city,  it  was  accepted, — as  I  judge  from  the 
speeches  and  editorials  of  that  time, — as  a  symbol  and 
reminder  of  the  important  military  aid  which  the  French 
monarchy  rendered  us  during  our  struggle  for  independence. 
But  I  believe  that  there  is  also  another  boon  which  we  owe 
to  the  French  Republic,  which  is,  in  my  opinion,  at  least 
equal  to  this  military  assistance.  I  refer  to  Universal  Suf- 
frage, which,  while  it  has  become  so  acclimated  here,  as  to 
be  generally  considered  the  American  political  idea,  still 
was  in  fact  imported  from  France.  What  has  been  its 
reception? 

The  Federal  party  would  have  none  of  it.  At  the  time 
of  our  Revolution,  and  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  our 
Constitution,  it  was  in  force  in  none  of  the  States.  In  this 
State  of  New  York,  an  interest  in  real  estate  was  required 
for  all  voters.  This  was  abolished  only  after  a  hard 
struggle,  in  the  convention  of  1821,  and  against  the  ener- 
getic protest  of  such  men  as  Chancellor  Kent  and  Judge 
Spencer. 

The  change  was  due  to  the  Democratic  Party,  following 
especially  the  great  theories  of  Jefferson,  who  in  turn  drew 
his  inspirations  from  the  French  philosophers  of  the  18th 
century,  in  opposition  to  the  narrow,  colonial  ideas  of  the 
Federalists,  who  could  imagine  no  better  government  than 
that  of  a  British  squirarchy,  and  whose  leader,  Hamilton, 
declared  himself  in  favor  of  that  government  as  a  model, 
although  it  was  "bottomed  in  corruption,"  and  although  he 


tig 

confessed  that  to  strike  out  that  corruption,  would  render 
it  impracticable. 

It  was  Jefferson  who  wrote  to   David   Hartley  : 

"  I  have  no  fear  but  the  result  of  our  experiment  will  be  that 
men  may  be  trusted  to  govern  themselves,  without  a  master. 
Could  the  contrary  of  this  be  proved,  I  should  conclude  either 
that  there  was  no  God,  or  that  he  is  a  malevolent  being. " 

And  yet  I  cannot  be  surprised,  if,  what  I  have  said,  should 
call  forth  in  this  club  half  derisive  smiles,  such  as  the 
Roman  augurs  wore,  in  Cicero's  time,  when  performing  their 
mysterious  rites,  out  of  sight  of  the  public.  No  set  of  men, 
perhaps,  are  better  acquainted  with  the  practical  working  of 
ourgovernment, — especially  in  this  great  city;  we  know  how 
much  it  is  a  government  "of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and 
for  the  people."  We  know  about  what  it  costs  to  get  a 
nomination  to  the  Legislature  or  the  Bench  ;  we  know 
what  chance  a  measure  for  the  general  public  good  has  on 
its  merits  in  the  Legislature  or  in  the  Board  of  Aldermen  ; 
we  know  for  what  considerations  the  city  is  allowed  to  re- 
main full  of  moral  plague  spots  ;  we  know  how  often 
"reform"  and  "  public  spirit "  have  been  the  screen  under 
whose  cover  public  offices  have  been  gained,  only  to  be 
used  for  selfish  ends. 

And  if  we  turn  from  our  personal  experience,  and  consult 
the  writers  in  the  magazines  of  the  day,  how  few  do  we  find 
of  any  importance,  who  have  a  good  word  to  say  for  this 
universal  suffrage  !  I  will  only  cite  a  few  passages.  Thus 
the  historian,  Parkman,  says  in  his  article  in  the  North 
American  Review  (vol.  127),  entitled  "  Failure  of  Universal 
Suffrage :  " 

' '  More  and  more  we  drift  into  the  condition  of  those  unhappy 
~0"nt-ies  where  'the  post  of  honor  is  a  private  condition.' '' 

• '  What  sort  of  statesmanship  these  forty  millions  produce,  let 
the  records  of  Congress  show. " 


120 


' '  Our  politics  do  not  invite,  and  hardly  even  admit,  the  higher 
and  stronger  faculties  to  a  part  in  them." 

"  Liberal  education  is  robbed  of  its  best  continuance  and  con- 
summation, in  so  far  as  it  is  shut  out  from  the  noblest  field  of 
human  effort,  the  direction  of  affairs  of  State." 

"It  is  in  the  cities  that  the  diseases  of  the  body  politic  are 
gathered  to  a  head,  and  it  is  here  that  the  need  of  attacking  them 
is  most  urgent.     Our  cities  have  become  a  prey. " 

Gold  win  Smith,  in  Putnam's  Magazine  (vol.  43,  p.  71),  says  : 

' '  That  Universal  Suffrage,  in  the  strict  and  literal  sense  of  the 
term,  has  failed  in  some  respects  and  produced  serious  evils, 
assuredly  is  not  to  be  denied.  While  the  wealthier  classes  have 
lost,  the  poorer  have  in  no  way  gained  by  municipal  pillage, 
which  has  enriched  the  demagogues.alone.  Witness  the  condition 
of  the  poorer  quarters  of  New  York. " 

And  again  Cuthbert  Mills,  in  International  Review  of  1880, 
p.  209  : 

"  Universal  suffrage  has  broken  down  in  cities." 

Macaulay,  writing  to  Henry  S.  Randall,  says  : 

"It  is  quite  plain  that  your  government  will  never  be  able  to 
restrain  a  distressed  and  discontented  majority.  There  is  nothing 
to  stop  you.  Your  constitution  is  all  sail  and  no  anchor.  As  I 
said  before,  when  a  society  has  entered  on  this  downward  progress, 
either  civilization  or  liberty  must  perish.  Thinking  thus,  of  course, 
I  cannot  reckon  Jefferson  among  the  benefactors  of  mankind. " 

Other  similar  articles  are  "  The  Failure  of  Universal 
Suffrage,"  in  North  American  Review,  for  July,  1878  ;  Robert 
Lewes'  article,  "  Mr.  Gladstone  on  Manhood  Suffrage,"  in 
28^  Fortnightly  Review,  p.  734  ;  "  Universal  Suffrage  in  the 
United  States,  and  its  Consequences,"  in  Frasers  Magazine, 
July,  1862. 

But  only  one  magazine  article  have  I  found  in  iavor  of 
this  democratic  doctrine,  "  Suffrage  a  Birtnnght,"  by  Geo. 


121 


W.  Julian,  in  International  Review,  for  January,  1879,  and 
even  that  writer  admits  the  existence  of  grave  evils  under 
our  present  system, — only  offers  the  stale  denunciation  of  the 
recreancy  of  the  better  sort  of  men  of  all  political  parties. 

And  must  we  not  all  admit  that  the  gravest  evils  do 
exist  ?  That  this  country  is  not  realizing  the  bright  prom- 
ises of  its  youth  ;  that  we  consider  ourselves  happy  to  get 
rulers,  who  at  least  preserve  a  show  of  regard  for  the 
dictates  of  ordinary  honesty? 

And  is  it  not  so,  that  among  the  men  we  meet,  it  is 
becoming  more  and  more  usual  to  have  them  lay  the  blame 
for  this  state  of  things  at  the  door  of  Universal  Suffrage, 
and  to  hear  the  wish  expressed  that  this  right  should  be 
limited,  in  some  way,  either  by  a  property  or  educational 
test  ? 

But,  Mr.  President,  I  consider  that  it  is  worse  than  idle 
to  talk  of  limiting  universal  suffrage  ;  it  has  become  inex- 
tricably woven  into  our  theories  and  institutions. 

Moreover,  I  do  not  think  that,  if  they  were  practicable, 
either  an  educational  or  a  property  test  would  be  de- 
sirable.    As  Mr.  Julian  said  in  the  above  cited  article  : 

"That  a  government  basing  its  authority  on  the  doctrine  of 
inalienable  rights,  and  professing  to  derive  its  powers  from  the 
consent  of  the  governed,  would  continue  to  impose  a  property 
qualification  upon  voters,  was  a  manifest  political  absurdity. " 

Or  as  Benjamin  Franklin  puts  it  : 

"  Suppose  a  man  owns  a  jackass  worth  $100,  and  that  property 
confers  upon  him  the  right  to  vote ;  very  well,  he  votes,  but  in 
the  next  year  the  death  of  the  animal  deprives  the  man  of  the 
vote  ;  was  it  then  the  man,  or  the  jackass  who  voted  ? " 

Every  inhabitant  of  a  country  pays  taxes  directly  or 
indirectly,  and  suffers  from  their  increase  ;  every  man  is 
liable  to  be  drafted  for  the  common  defence  ;  every  trade  or 
business  can  be  ruined  by  the   ordinances  of  the  Board  of 


122 


Aldermen,  or  laws  of  the  Legislature.  What  concerns  all 
must  be  approved  by  all.  To  exclude  one  class  works  evil 
both  on  the  governing  and  on  the  governed.  The  latter 
lose  interest  in  public  affairs  and  become  a  dangerous 
element  ;  the  former  assume  that  everything  must  yield  to 
their  class  interest,  and  the  history  of  oligarchies  shows 
only  an  invariable  increase  of  class  pride  and  arro- 
gance. 

Moreover,  no  one  who  is  accustomed  to  mingle  with  rich 
and  poor  can  say  that  one  class  or  the  other  has  a  monopoly 
of  the  vices  or  of  the  virtues. 

An  educational  test  would  afford  no  criterion  of  the 
moral  qualities  of  the  voter,  for,  as  Herbert  Spencer  has 
shown,  education  cannot  touch  that  will,  which  guides  a 
man's  actions  and  which  lies  back  of  his  intellect.  As 
Seneca  says  :  "  Velle  non  discitur"  Besides  men  of  the 
student  class  acquire  or  lose  something  which  unfits  them 
— as  we  all  know — to  a  certain  extent  from  practical  busi- 
ness affairs ;  and,  if  this  is  so,  in  the  small  affairs  of  daily 
life,  still  more  manifest  would  it  become  in  public  affairs, — 
as  is  also  shown  by  history. 

If  then  neither  an  educational  nor  a  property  qualification 
of  the  suffrage  is  practicable  or  desirable,  what  is  the  cause 
of  these  present  evils  ?  I  believe  a  glance  at  the  consti- 
tutional history  of  our  State  will  show  why  universal  suffrage 
in  our  cities  has  produced  such  poor  public  officials  and 
legislators. 

The  Constitution  of  1777  provided  for  the  election  of 
24  Senators  from  four  great  districts,  and  70  Assemblymen, 
divided  among  the  different  counties.  The  Constitution  of 
1 82 1  directed  that  32  Senators  be  chosen  from  8  districts,  and 
128  Assemblymen  from  different  counties.  The  result  was 
that  several  Senators  and  several  Assemblymen  were  voted 
for  by  the  inhabitants  of  one  county  or  city,  on  a  general 
ticket. 


123- 


The  Constitution  of  1846  changed  this  by  requiring  one 
Senator  to  be  elected  from  each  of  the  32  senatorial  dis- 
tricts, and  by  directing  the  Board  of  Supervisors  of  each 
county  to  divide  that  county  into  districts,  containing  an 
equal  number  of  inhabitants,  which  districts  were  each  to 
elect  one  Assemblyman.  In  the  discussions  in  the  Legis- 
lature, which  led  to  calling  this  convention,  this  innovation 
had  not  been  considered.  This  change  was  not  effected 
without  strong  opposition;  12  of  the  15  New  York  repre- 
sentatives, including  such  men  as  Charles  O'Connor,  David 
R.  Floyd-Jones  and  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  voted  against  it.  Mr. 
Chatfield  said  : 

"  But  the  more  serious  objections  were  that  you  would  get  up  59 
gerrymandering  bodies,  to  cut  up  counties  with  reference  rather  to 
party  objects  than  anything  else.  A  county  is  an  identity,  an  in- 
dividual, so  far  as  its  interests  were  represented  on  this  floor.  Why 
then  seek  to  distract  this  identity  of  interests,  by  breaking  up  its 
representation  on  this  floor  ?  The  effect  of  this  representation 
coming  here  divided,  would  be  to  cause  the  interests  of  the  county 
to  suffer,  as  each  man  would  hold  himself  responsible  only  to  the 
constituency  of  his  district.  It  would  make  mince-meat  of  the 
counties  for  mere  political  ends. " 

Mr.  Tilden  denied  that  the  sentiment  of    the   people  of 
New  York  had  been  expressed  in  favor  of  any  districts. 
Mr.  Kennedy  hoped : 

' '  That  the  Convention,  before  it  adjourned,  would  see  the  in- 
justice done  to  the  City  of  New  York,  by  obliging  a  division  of  it 
into  four  separate  districts. " 

None  of  New  York's  representatives  spoke  in  favor  of  the 
change  ;  the  only  arguments  for  it  came  from  county  mem- 
bers in  the  large  senatorial  districts,  who  "wanted  to  know 
their  Senator,  to  shake  hands  with  him.r' 

What  has  been  the  effect  of  this  change  in  our  cities  ? 
From  that  time  dates  the   political  decline  of  the  Legis- 


124 

lature  of  the  State  of  New  York.  Mr.  Marcy  was  not 
returned  to  the  U.  S.  Senate,  and  if  we  except  William  H. 
Seward,  who  was  the  leading  spirit  of  this  Convention  of 
1846,  that  position  has  since  then  seldom,  if  ever,  been  filled 
by  a  statesman  such  as  should  represent  the  Empire 
State,  and  ably  play  a  part  in  the  history  of  the  country, 
proportionate  to  the  importance  of  our  State.  From  that 
time  dates  the  decline  of  our  primaries  in  New  York  City  ; 
prior  to  1846,  business  men  made  a  practice  of  attending 
primaries,  and  enjoyed  the  feeling  that  they  were  taking 
part  in  the  government  of  the  country.  But  by  1850,  pri- 
maries had  become  what  we  see  them  to-day. 

The  discussions  in  the  Legislature,  which  prior  to  that  time 
were  so  full  of  wit  and  wisdom,  degenerated,  and  members 
spent  their  energies  chiefly  in  efforts  to  secure  places  and 
shower  favors  on  the  men  who  ran  these  primaries.  Our 
city  representatives  allow  millions  every  year  to  be  raised 
by  taxation  in  this  City  of  New  York,  and  to  be  distributed 
among  the  agricultural  counties  of  the  State.  The  real 
interests  of  our  city  are  not  represented.  When  a  great 
body  like  the  Produce  Exchange,  or  the  Stock  Exchange, 
or  the  Bar  Association,  or  the  County  Medical  Society, 
sends  representatives  to  Albany,  to  avert  some  threatened 
evil,  little  or  no  assistance  can  they  get  from  the  city's 
representatives  ;  in  fact,  as  a  rule,  they  find  that  the  men 
from  New  York  in  the  Legislature,  are  their  worst  foes,  and 
the  only  assistance  they  can  get  is  from  representatives  of 
the  rural  districts. 

These  latter  frequently  ask  half  contemptuously,  why  we 
do  not  send  better  representatives,  and  complain  that  the 
whole  State  is  injured  by  their  ignorance  and  venality. 
And  yet  the  men  of  New  York  City  show  no  decline  in  the 
sagacity  of  their  management  of  private  affairs. 

Our  business  men  still  hold  the  commerce  of  this  continent 
in  their  grasp ;  the  city  is    rapidly  becoming  the  centre  of 


125 

art  and  literature,  and  especially  all  questions  relating  to 
political  economy  and  government,  receive  great  attention. 
Why  do  our  legislators  so  unworthily  represent  all  this 
accumulation  of  practical  and  theoretical  knowledge  and 
ability  ?  It  is  in  vain  to  adjure  the  so-called  better  classes 
to  attend  primaries  ;  the  reception  of  the  last  resolution  to 
that  effect,  offered  in  this  club,  showed  how  little  faith  we 
had  in  any  such  appeal.  The  great  mass  of  citizens  will 
not  come.  Their  acquaintances  live  scattered  all  over  the 
city  ;  the  men,  with  whom  they  have  common  interests, 
which  may  be  furthered  or  injured  by  the  Legislature,  are 
the  men  whom  they  meet  every  day  in  their  exchanges, 
courts,  manufactories  and  shops.  With  the  increase  of 
rapid  transit  the  tie  of  locality  in  our  cities  is  becoming  daily 
less  ; — what  interests,  as  such,  has  a  man  living  on  the  East 
side  of  a  Third  Avenue  distinct  from  those  of  a  man  living 
across  the  street,  so  that  they  must  have  different  repre- 
sentatives, or  what  interest  has  he,  which  is  at  all  likely  to 
be  affected  by  legislation,  in  common  with  the  man  who 
lives  on  the  same  side  of  the  street,  so  that  they  must  vote 
for  the  same  Solon.  The  man  whom  he  thinks  best  calculated 
to  ward  off  in  the  Legislature  some  evil,  which  threatens  to 
destroy  his  means  of  gaining  a  living  in  his  business,  trade 
or  profession,  very  probably  lives  many  blocks  off,  perhaps 
at  the  other  end  of  the  city;  his  fellow  tradesmen  or  business- 
men may  live  scattered  throughout  the  24  districts,  so 
that  it  is  impossible  for  them,  ever,  in  any  one  district, 
to  unite  and  elect  a  representative  of  their  most  important 
interests.  On  the  other  hand,  an  unimportant  interest,  whose 
members  happen  to  live  in  the  same  neighborhood,  sends  a 
number  of  representatives,  far  larger  than  its  importance 
demands.  In  fact,  the  geographical  division  of  the  inhabi- 
tants of  cities,  for  the  purpose  of  electing  members  of  the 
Legislature,  is  a  false  and  artificial  one,  which  has  no  con- 
nection with   the  real  organizations  of  the  people  ;  a  city 


126 


should  be  a  political  unit.  The  great  strides  of  our  civili- 
zation date  from  the  13th  and  14th  centuries,  when  cities 
were  recognized  as  political  units. 

The  great  reform  in  city  government,  produced  by  the 
Roosevelt  bills,  consisted  in  taking  power  from  the  Board 
of  Aldermen,  whose  members  are  elected  from  geographical 
districts,  and  in  giving  that  power  to  the  Board  of  Esti- 
mate and  Apportionment  and  the  Mayor,  who  are  elected 
on  a  general  ticket. 

Our  system  of  electing  representatives  is  copied  from 
rural  institutions,  where  the  division  of  farmers  into 
townships  by  geographical  lines  secures  a  division  of  the 
inhabitants,  according  to  their  most  important  interests, 
since  the  farmers  of  the  same  neighborhood  depend,  as  a  rule,' 
on  the  same  principal  product  of  the  soil.  But  in  cities] 
where  men  do  not  live  on  the  products  of  the  soil,  this 
same  division  secures  the  very  opposite  results,  and  pre- 
vents men  from  sending  to  the  Legislature  representatives 
of  their  strongest  interests. 

At  present,  religious  and  other  associations,  which 
embrace  the  whole  city,  are  gaining  an  undue  influence  in 
politics. 

How  can  this  evil  be  ended  ?  What  must  be  done  to 
give  Universal  Suffrage  the  position  it  should  hold  in  the 
hearts  of  our  people  ? 

I  believe  the  answer  comes  to  us  again  from  the  home  of 
Universal  Suffrage — from  France. 

The  Assemblee  Nationale  of  1789,  declared  that  France 
should  be  divided  into  a  number  of  large  districts,  and  that 
each  district  should  return  a  number  of  representatives  in 
proportion  to  the  number  of  its  inhabitants.  The  second 
Republic  of  1848,  adopted  the  same  principle  of  electing  a 
number  of  representatives  from  a  large  district  on  a  general 
ticket.  The  third  Republic  of  1870,  did  the  same.  And 
each  time  the  enemies  of  the  Republic  succeeded  in  cheating 


127 

the  people  out  of  this  system,  because  the  latter  did  not 
fully  understand  its  importance,  and  in  introducing  the 
system  of  elections  on  a  single  ticket  from  small  districts, 
and  in  each  case  the  fall  of  the  Republic  was  the  expected 
result. 

Gambetta  in  his  speech  in  favor  of  election  by  general 
ticket,  or  scrutin  du  liste,  on  November  II,  1875,  declared  : 
' '  I  give  the  Empire  credit  for  having  understood  the  power  of 
democracy  to  the  point  of  wanting  to  trouble  its  source." 

And  a  few  days  later,  he  said  : 

"The  laws  which  regulate  the  manner  of  voting  are  as  essential 
for  the  future  of  society,  as  even  those  laws  which  acknowledged 
and  established  the  Republic. " 

Can  we  not, — who  know  the  character  of  our  average 
city  legislators,  elected  on  the  single  ticket  system, — im- 
agine how  it  was  possible  for  Napoleon  III.  to  rule  France,. 
with  a  legislature  elected  on  the  principle  of  Universal 
Suffrage  ?  And  why,  under  this  present  Republic,  all  its 
enemies  united  to  banish  the  scrutin  du  liste  in  1875,  and 
to  resist  every  attempt  of  Gambetta  to  bring  it  back  ? 

But  while  that  true  Republican  did  not  live  to  see  the 
triumph  of  this  system,  for  the  realization  of  which  he 
strained  his  whole  giant  energies,  yet  it  has  come  to  pass 
at  last  ;  and  this  fall,  France  is  to  elect  a  legislature  with 
scrutin  du  liste,  or  on  a  general  ticket  in  large  districts.  * 
In  the  words  of  our  poet  : 

' '  The  thoughts  great  hearts  once  broke  for, 
We  breathe  cheaply  in  the  common  air  ; 
The  dust  we  trample  heedlessly, 
Throbbed  once  in  saints  and  heroes  rare  ; 
Who  perished, — opening  for  the  race 
New  pathways  to  the  common  place." 

*  The  result  of  this  election  in  returning  an  increased  number  of  conservative 
delegates  and  defeating  many  ministerial  deputies,  shows  how  idle  were  the  fears 


128 


Not  only  the  French  have  recognized  this  principle  of 
•election  by  general  ticket,  as  the  foundation  of  Universal 
Suffrage,  but  probably  the  greatest  of  modern  English 
political  thinkers, — John  Stuart  Mill,  in  his  "Considerations 
on  Representative  Government,"  thus  expresses  himself, 
(on  page  167)  : 

' '  But  I  cannot  see  why  the  feelings  and  interests  which  arrange 
mankind  according  to  localities  should  be  the  only  ones  thought 
worthy  of  being  represented,  or  why  people  who  have  other  feelings 
and  interests,  which  they  value  more  than  they  do  their  geographi- 
cal ones,  should  be  restricted  to  these  as  the  sole  principle  of  their 
political  classification. " 

And  Mr.  Mill's  whole  laudation  of  the  scheme  of  cu- 
mulative voting,  invented  by  Mr.  Hare,  springs  evidently 
from  his  dissatisfaction  with  the  present  system  of  repre- 
sentation of  small  geographical  districts ;  as  he  says  on 
page  157  : 

' '  The  member  would  represent  persons,  not  the  mere  bricks 
and  mortar  of  the  town,  the  voters  themselves,  not  a  few  vestry- 
men or  parish  notables. " 

Thomas  Jefferson  adopted  this  system  of  election  by  a 
general  ticket,  in  his  draft  of  a  Constitution  for  Virginia. 

Since  then  we  see  that  this  system  of  election  of  several 
legislators,  on  a  general  ticket,  from  a  large  district,  like 
our  City  of  New  York,  was  introduced  by  the  Fathers,  who 
gave  us  our  National  and  our  first  State  Constitution,  and 
remained  in  force  for  two  generations,  during  which  our 
State  held  its  own  in  our  political  history,  and  its  govern- 
ment was  administered  by  the  best  men  it  produced,  and 
since  this  system  was  subsequently  abolished  without  good 
reason,  without  full  discussion,  and  against  the  protest  of 

of  those  who  predicted  a  victory  of  the  communists,  or  absolute  power  to  the 
professional  politicians.  Rochefort,  instead  of  heading  the  ticket,  is  doubtful 
of  bis  election. 


I2Q 

such  wise  men  as  Charles  O'Conner,  David  R.  Floyd-Jones 
and  Samuel  J.  Tilden,  and  since  our  brother  Republicans  in 
France  have  recognized  this  question  of  the  manner  of 
electing  representatives  to  be  of  the  very  essence  of  Universal 
Suffrage,  and  since  such  great  writers  as  Mill  commend  it 
theoretically,  and  since  no  other  practical  remedy  to  the 
apparent  and  ever  increasing  evils  of  our  government  is 
■offered, — why  should  we  not  return  to  this  plan  of  making  the 
city  a  political  unit,  and  electing  representatives  of  the 
whole  of  it,  and  not  of  its  dissected  parts  ?  Might  we  not 
thus  secure,  again  a  representative  government,  worthy  of 
the  Empire  State  ? 

To  make  a  beginning,  should  not  the  cities  be  represented 
in  the  State  conventions  as  a  whole,  by  electing  their  dele- 
gates on  a  general  ticket  ?  This  is  now  in  fact  done, 
when  Tammany  Hall,  Irving  Hall  and  the  County  Dem- 
ocracy are  each  awarded  representation,  without  reference 
to  their  numerical  strength  in  the  different  districts,  but  in 
proportion  to  their  influence  in  the  city  as  a  whole.  Let  it 
be  announced  that  the  24  Democrats,  receiving  the  largest 
number  of  votes  from  the  whole  city,  are  to  be  sent  to  the 
convention,  and  I  believe  that  you  will  see  the  whole  city 
take  an  interest  in  the  primaries,  and  that  you  will  see 
24  men  elected  of  whom  the  Democratic  party  and  our  city 
will  be  proud. 

The  problem  cannot  be  solved  by  reference  to  authorities 
of  the  past,  when  a  little  over  three  per  cent,  of  the  popu- 
lation lived  in  cities  of  more  than  8000  inhabitants,  while 
now  in  this  State  more  than  50  per  cent,  live  in  such  cities. 
Our  constitution  was  intended  for  an  agricultural  population, 
and  the  wonder  is  that  it  has  sufficed  at  all  with  so  few 
changes  to  suit  our  altered  circumstances.  The  Democratic 
party  cannot  be  content  with  the  cry  :  "  We  have  Jefferson 
for  our  father." 


Jefferson  wrote  to  Madison  on  December  20,  1787,  from 
Paris  : 

' '  This  reliance  cannot  deceive  us  as  long  as  we  remain  virtuous ; 
and  I  think  we  shall  be  so  as  long  as  agriculture  is  our  principal 
object,  which  will  be  the  case  while  there  remain  vacant  lands  in 
any  part  of  America.  When  we  get  piled  upon  one  another  in 
large  cities,  as  in  Europe,  we  shall  become  corrupt,  as  in  Europe, 
and  go  to  eating  one  another  as  they  do  here. " 

No  part  of  the  world  holds  so  dense  a  population  as  that 
part  of  this  city  which  is  bounded  on  the  north  by  14th 
Street  and  on  the  west  by  Broadway.  Strong  measures  are 
needed  ;  our  cities  are  the  great  centres  upon  whose  welfare 
that  of  the  country  depends  ;  the  task  before  this  gene- 
ration is  as  important  as  and  perhaps  more  difficult  than 
that  which  confronted  the  writers  of  the  Federalist. 

The  public  affairs  of  our  villages  are,  as  a  rule,  not  so 
well  administered  after  they  receive  a  city  charter  ;  I  believe 
the  reason  to  be  that  villages  are  generally  governed  by 
trustees,  who  are  elected  by  the  whole  community,  on  a 
general  ticket,  instead  of  by  a  Board  of  Aldermen,  each 
member  of  which  is  elected  from  a  single  district. 

The  Mayors  of  our  cities  are,  as  a  rule,  chosen  from 
among  our  best  citizens  and  are  far  superior  to  the  Alder- 
men. 

No  lawyer  doubts  that  better  judges  could  be  obtained 
for  our  district  courts,  if  they  were  elected  by  the  city  at 
large ;  their  inferiority  in  learning  and  character  to  the 
judges  of  our  general  city  courts  is  far  greater  than  any 
difference  in  salary  would  warrant. 

If  we  can  elect  a  respectable  Mayor,  President  of  the 
Board  of  Aldermen  and  half  a  dozen  judges  in  one  year, 
why  can  we  not  also  elect  a  number  of  respectable  legis- 
lators on  a  general  ticket  ? 


The  innumerable  amendments  to  the  charter  of  the  city, 
during  the  last  fifty  years,  have  been  mostly  caused  by  the 
necessity  of  taking  one  power  after  the  other  from  the 
Board  of  Aldermen  and  of  giving  it  to  officials  or  boards 
elected  on  a  general  ticket,  or  appointed  by  an  official 
elected  on  such  a  ticket. 

This  movement  culminated  in  the  Reform  bills  of  1884, 
which  took  the  right  of  confirmation  from  the  Board  of 
Aldermen  and  gave  the  uncontrolled  power  of  appointment 
to  the  Mayor. 

These  improvements  came  from  the  exertions  of  com- 
mittees of  50,  70  or  100,  selected  from  the  city  at  large, 
without  reference  to  the  districts  ;  why  could  not  the  con- 
trol of  our  municipal  affairs  be  always  in  the  hands  of  a 
committee  of  such  character  ? 

The  reckless  manner  in  which  the  Board  of  Aldermen 
exercises  its  only  remaining  power,  in  giving  away  the  pub- 
lic streets,  shows  that  this  too  must  shortly  be  taken  from 
these  "  deestrick"  representatives,  and  given  to  a  Board 
elected  on  a  general  ticket,  or  placed  under  the  control  of 
the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment. 

The  indirect  benefits  of  these  reform  bills  is  already 
becoming  apparent  in  the  decreased  influence  of  the  Halls  ; 
like  Flood  Rock  after  the  explosion,  they  are  rent  with  fis- 
sures and  honeycombed  with  chasms,  and  only  the  shell 
remains. 

The  next  task  for  reform  is  to  abolish  the  rest  of  these 
geographical  election  districts  in  cities  and  to  elect  our 
Assemblymen  and  Senators  from  the  city  at  large.  Let 
our  citizens  group  themselves  according  to  their  most  im- 
portant interests  and  not  according  to  the  places,  where 
they  happen  to  sleep  at  night,  and  let  those  important  in- 
terests send  representatives  to  the  Legislature,  to  meet 
those  of  our  fellow-citizens  who  live  by  agriculture. 


132 

So  long  as  we  keep  these  artificial  districts,  they  must  be 
worked  by  machines  ;  and  the  machine  which  uses  the  most 
"soap"  will  win.  No  party  which  tries  to  carry  out  the 
letter  and  spirit  of  civil  service  reform  can  now  remain  in 
power  ;  civil  service  reformers  must  strike  deeper  and 
remove  the  cause  for  the  demand  for  the  political  worker, 
otherwise  their  Civil-Service  Commissioners  will  sooner  or 
later  be  politicians,  who  will  use  this  centralized  power  to 
the  greater  detriment  of  the  country.  Remove  this  demand 
for  "  workers,"  and  the  constitutional  method  of  selecting 
public  officials  will  suffice. 

Men  are  bound  to  create  associations  to  further  their 
important  interests  and  to  seek  to  have  them  represented  in 
the  Legislature  ;  if  the  Constitution  does  not  provide  for 
their  natural  recognition  they  will  spring  up  and  work  out- 
side of  the  law  and  become  a  danger  to  the  State. 

Our  mistake  has  been  in  following  too  blindly  the  exam- 
ple of  the  Germanic  township, — so  lauded  in  its  New  Eng- 
land form  by  De  Tocqueville, — but  we  have  overlooked  the 
essential  difference  between  an  agricultural  community  and 
an  arbitrary  aggregation  of  city  blocks. 

De  Tocqueville  says  in  his  "Democracy  in  America" 
(p.  67): 

"  It  is  important  to  remember  that  they  (townships)  have  not 
been  invested  with  privileges,  but  that  they  seem  on  the  contrary, 
to  have  surrendered  a  portion  of  their  independence  to  the  state. 

The  New  Englander  is  attached  to  his  township,  because  it 

constitutes  a  strong  and  free  social  body  of  which  he  is  a  member, 
and  whose  government  claims  and  deserves  the  exercise  of  his 
sagacity. " 

Does  this  apply  to  our  geographical  election  districts  in 
lities  ? 

Can  it  apply  to  any  geographical  sub-division  of  our 
Jijty  ? 


133 


There  will  be  no  devotion  to  the  city's  interests  and  no 
civic  pride,  and  but  little  devotion  to  the  State,  so  long  as 
the  city  is  not  recognized  as  a  member  of  the  State  and 
represented  as  such,  and  its  citizens  allowed  to  group  them- 
selves naturally  and  select  their  real  representatives. 

The  evil  influences  of  the  bad  government  and  bad  repre- 
sentation of  our  cities  cannot  be  over-estimated  ;  if  they 
continue,  our  civilization  may  be  endangered,  especially  by 
reckless  attempts  at  codification.  In  fact,  the  less  our 
Legislature  does,  beyond  what  is  absolutely  required  for  the 
necessities  of  the  hour,  the  better  ;  the  prevalence  of  this 
sentiment  is  shown  by  the  general  demand  for  biennial  ses- 
sions. A  constitutional  convention  will  be  held  bef  re  long 
in  this  State  ;  according  to  precedent,  several  members  will 
be  elected  on  a  general  ticket  from  each  Senatorial  district, 
and  a  number  of  representatives  from  the  State  at  large. 
In  former  years,  these  bodies  were  composed  to  a  large 
degree  of  the  ablest  and  most  experienced  men  in  the  State. 
Could  not  our  cities,  from  such  a  Convention,  regain  a 
system  of  true  representation,  and  establish  on  firm  Demo- 
cratic principles,  for  ages  to  come,  Universal  Suffrage — the 
pedestal  of  our  American  Liberty  ? 


134 

The  following  lists  shozv  the  occupations  of  the  candidates 
from  the  election  districts,  as  given  in  the  EVENING  POST 
of  October  29th  : 

ALDERMEN  : 


Liquor  Dealers 19 

No  business  except  politics , 7 

Lawyers 3 

Clerks 3 

Stone-yard  owners 2 

Stable  keepers 2 

Oyster  dealers 2 

Jewellers 2 

Butcher 

Butter  dealer 

Fish  dealer 

Provision  dealer 

Plumber 


Truckman 

Poultry  dealer 

Shoemaker 

Undertaker    

Saddler 

Janitor 

Cigar  dealer 

Gasemaker 

Mechanic     

Publisher  .    .  .    

Real  Estate  broker 

Inspector  in  Custom  House 


No  business  except  politics 4 

Lawyers 5 

Merchants ...  2 

Lumber  Dealer 1 


Undertaker 1 

Butcher    1 

Real  Estate 1 


ASSEMBLYMEN 


No  business  except  politics 14 

Clerks 13 

Lawyers 10 

Liquor  dealers    7 

Business  unknown 3 

Truckmen I 

Auctioneer 1 

Fish  dealer I 

Milk  dealer 1 

Stable-keeper 1 

Real  estate  ....    1 


Merchant 

Butcher 

Baker 

Mason 

Provision  Dealer. 
Ex-policeman  . . 

Peddler 

Ice -cart  driver  . . 

Builder 

Lumber  dealer . . 


135 

Argument  in  Favor  of  Electing  Aldermen  on  a 
General  Ticket. 

THE  Spring  Election  and  Aldermanic  bill,  providing 
among  other  things  for  the  election  of  Aldermen  on  a 
general  ticket  from  the  City  at  large,  with  cumulative  vo- 
ting, deals  confessedly  with  a  difficult  subject.  From  De 
Tocqueville  to  President  Woolsey  and  Governor  Seymour  we 
have  innumerable  laudations  of  the  rural  township  system; 
but,  when  the  government  of  cities  is  reached,  a  few  sen- 
tences of  mournful  lament  over  their  wickedness  suffice  and, 
like  the  Levite  in  the  parable,  they  pass  by  on  the  other 
side.  And  yet  all  confess  that  this  problem  of  good  city 
government  is  of  the  utmost  importance  for  our  future  civi- 
lization. 

The  two  points  in  this  bill  to  which  I  wish  to  call  partic- 
ular attention  are  the  practical  advantages  to  be  derived 
from  the  election  of  Aldermen  on  a  general  ticket  from  the 
City  at  large,  and  the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of 
the  provision  for  cumulative  voting, — as  I  understand  that 
the  gentlemen  representing  the  City  Reform  Club  intend 
to  state  the  reasons  for  the  other  changes  contemplated  by 
this  bill. 

The  evils  which  this  bill  is  intended  to  remedy  are  so 
well  known,  that  it  is  needless  for  me  to  dwell  upon  them 
here  ;  it  is  hardly  possible  that  our  Board  of  Aldermen  can 
sink  lower  than  it  has  done. — The  Board  6f  1884  was  not  a 
particularly  bad  one, — so  far  as  one  could  judge  from  gen- 
eral behaviour  and  appearance  of  its  members  ; — it  seemed 
to  me  to  be  somewhat  an  improvement  on  that  of  1883, 
which  was  the  first  Board  elected  exclusively  from  districts. 

The  reason  the  Board  of  1884  became  so  notorious  was  that 
it  was  in  1884  that  the  law  was  passed  authorizing  the  Alder- 
men to  grant  franchises  to  City  railroads  ;  that  Board  was 
the  first  which  had  this  opportunity. — No  one  who  has  had 
dealings  with  the  Board  of  1885  will  claim  that  it  was  com- 


136 

posed  of  a  class  of  men  superior  to  its  predecessors.  It  was 
my  fortune  to  have  considerable  to  do  with  those  three 
boards,  in  the  capacity  of  counsel  for  the  Citizens'  West  Side 
Association, — an  organization  which  desired  to  lessen  the 
evils  caused  by  the  running  of  steam  cars  through  the  streets 
on  the  west  side  of  the  City ; — and  I  confess  that  in  my 
opinion,  the  interests  of  the  citizens  at  large  received  as 
much  attention  from  one  of  these  Boards  as  it  did  from  the 
other. 

The  whole  history  of  the  innumerable  changes  of  our 
charter  is  explained  by  the  necessity  of  taking  one  by  one 
all  the  powers  from  the  Aldermen,  and  of  giving  them  to 
officers  elected  from  the  City  at  large,  or  to  their  ap- 
pointees.—This  work  was  thought  to  be  practically  com- 
pleted when  the  Committee  of  Fifty-three  secured  the  pas- 
sage of  the  Roosevelt  bills,  which  took  the  power  of  con- 
firming nominations  from  the  Board  of  Aldermen. — At  that 
time  the  politicians  raised  this  same  cry  that  democratic  in- 
stitutions were  in  danger,  &c.  ; — but  to-day  not  one  of  them 
would  dare  to  recommend  that  we  return  to  that  system  of 
"  deals  "  and   "  bargains." 

Unfortunately,  as  I  have  mentioned,  the  Board's  power 
for  evil  was  revived  in  the  same  year,  by  the  fatal  gift  of 
the  power  to  grant  franchises  ;  this  too  has  been  practically 
taken  from  them,  after  two  years'  abuse,  during  which  the 
City  has  disposed  of  its  most  valuable  franchises  for  very 
inadequate  consideration. 

The  Board  at  present  has  no  powers  of  any  importance 
left  to  it  ;  it  can  appoint  commissioners  of  deeds, — but  it 
can  do  little  else. — That  the  City  will  continue  to  pay  about 
$50,000  per  year  for  this — is  not  very  probable  ;  no  one  will 
probably  dare  to  recommend  that  the  Board  be  given  any 
new  powers  or  receive  again  those  of  which  it  has  been  de- 
prived. The  practical  question  is  therefore,  is  this  Board  to 
be  abolished,  or  shall  an  attempt  be  made  to  secure  more 


137 

satisfactory  representatives    by   selecting   its    members    in 
some  other  manner  ? 

It  is  true  that  the  present  method  has  the  prestige  of  an- 
tiquity ;  Governor  Dongan,  two  hundred  years  ago,  intro- 
duced the  charter,  granted  by  James  II.,  which  provided 
that  the  City  should  be  divided  into  wards,  and  one  alder- 
man elected  from  each  ward. — The  Montgomery  charter,  in 
the  early  part  of  the  last  century,  confirmed  this,  with  the 
limitation,  that  the  Aldermen  should  be  elected  only  by  the 
freeholders  in  the  Ward. — This  system  continued  down  to 
1804,  when  by  §  2  of  chap.  62  the  change  was  made  of  ex- 
tending the  franchise  to  all  who  had  paid  taxes  during  the 
year  and  "rented  a  tenement  of  the  yearly  value  of  twenty- 
five  dollars." 

At  no  time,  during  these  two  centuries,  can  it  be  said, 
that  the  Board  of  Aldermen  has  been  of  great  credit  to  the 
City. — No  sooner  had  Governor  Dongan  left,  than  Leisler, — 
a  man  who  had  obtained  his  influence  as  Alderman, — 
plunged  the  City  into  turmoil.  Passing  over  the  interme- 
diate period,  when  the  Board  was  chosen  only  by  the  real 
estate  owners  of  the  ward,  and  seems  never  to  'have  risen 
over  mediocrity,  the  change  of  1804  did  not  take  long  to 
bring  trouble  in  its  train. — Soon  the  interminable  changes 
began  of  electing  Aldermen  and  Councilmen  in  Boards  of 
various  sizes,  and  of  depriving  them  of  one  power  after  the 
other  and  entrusting  these  to  departments  and  commis- 
sioners. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  detail  here  this  weary  story, — we 
know  where  it  has  led  to,  and  we  hope,  has  ended. — After 
this  experience  of  two  centuries,  it  is  senseless  to  tell  New 
York  citizens,  that  this  system  of  electing  aldermen  from 
districts  is  the  best  possible  and  that  it  must  continue  un- 
changed.— Any  industrious  business  man  or  mechanic,  who 
lives  in  the  City  of  New  York,  knows  that  it  is  impossible 
for  him  to  make  acquaintances  in  his  Aldermanic  district,. 


I3« 

so  as  to  enable  him  to  exercise  any  influence  in  the  prima- 
ries compared  with  that  of  the  liquor  dealer,  who  spends  his 
whole  days  and  evenings  behind  his  bar,  and  by  dispensing 
cheap  but  highly  appreciated  favors  among  his  impecunious 
neighbors,  gains  a  power,  which  assures  him  control  of  the 
primary. — People  living  in  small  towns  or  in  the  country, 
can  with  difficulty  appreciate  the  entire  ignorance  of  each 
other  of  next  door  neighbors  in  New  York  City. — But  it  is 
something  which  cannot  be  changed  ;  the  large  number  of 
calls  which  every  man  has  on  his  leisure  time  from  his  friends, 
who  reside  all  over  the  City,  make  it  impossible  for  him  to  cul- 
tivate the  acquaintance  of  his  neighbors,  if  that  were  always 
desirable. — Men  in  a  large  City  have  their  acquaintances, — 
thanks  to  the  ease  of  rapid  transit,  scattered  over  the  whole 
city ;  they  meet  each  other  in  their  exchanges,  offices,  and 
workshops  during  the  day,  and  get  to  know  and  value  each 
other,  although  their  homes  may  be  miles  apart. — The  men 
living  in  the  same  district,  have  no  interests  as  such,  in  com- 
mon ;  the  geographical  division  of  cities  is  artificial, — copied 
from  rural  institutions. — In  the  country,  the  people  living  in 
the  same  neighborhood  not  only  know  each  other,  from  the 
permanency  of  residence,  &c, — but  as  they  cultivate  the  same 
soil  under  the  same  conditions,  their  principal  crops  are 
generally  the  same,  and  consequently  when  a  geographical 
division  of  the  country  is  represented,  a  group  of  men  is 
represented  united  according  to  their  most  important  in- 
terests.— In  cities,  men  do  not  get  their  living  from  the 
earth,  but  from  manufacturing,  transporting,  &c,  its  de- 
tached products  ; — consequently  geographical  divisions  of  a 
city  tear  men  asunder  and  prevent  the  great  mass  of  in- 
dustrious mechanics  and  business  men  who  know  and  esteem 
each  other  from  uniting  in  the  selection  of  a  represent- 
ative whom  they  know  and  honor  — And  so  long  as  this  un- 
natural division  continues,  the  liquor  dealers  and  their 
gangs  will  continue  to  rule  the  City ;  that  is  inevitable. 


139 

But  let  the  Legislature  give  our  City  the  chance  of  acting 
in  its  natural  way,  as  a  political  unit,  and  the  inhabitants 
of  New  York,  who  hold  the  commerce  of  this  continent  in 
their  grasp,  and  who  are  always  the  first  to  be  appealed  to 
and  the  first  to  respond  to  any  appeal  to  their  generosity, 
will  show  that  they  have  the  sagacity  as  well  as  the  civic 
pride,  necessary  to  redeem  the  reputation  of  their  city  gov- 
ernment from  being  a  bye-word,  and  an  example  of  every- 
thing that  is  to  be  avoided  to  the  inhabitants  of  two  con- 
tinents,— and    will    make  it  worthy  of  the   Empire   State. 

Owing  to  fortunate  circumstances,  the  Legislature  has 
given  us  this  unexpected  chance, — let  it  not  be  the  Exec- 
utive who  dashes  this  cup,  which  the  whole  press  and  cit- 
izens of  all  classes  have  hailed  with  such  delight, — from  our 

lips. We     need  a  Board  in  which   the  Citizens  can 

have  confidence  ;  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment 
is  too  small  to  consider  properly  all  the  City's  vast  inter- 
ests. Only  to  such  a  Board, — three  of  whose  members  are 
elected  on  a  general  ticket,  and  the  fourth  appointed  by  the 
Mayor, — could  the  City  finances  be  confided. — But  it  cannot 
supervise  all  the  City  departments  and  bring  economical, 
harmonious  administration  into  the  whole  ;  to  do  that,  re- 
quires a  more  numerous  body, — one  selected  from  the  very 
best  men  of  the  City. — These  questions  which  concern  the 
whole  City  should  be  decided  by  representatives  of  the 
whole  City  ; — under  the  present  system  a  majority  in  thir- 
teen districts  may  govern  the  City,  although  the  opposing 
majorities  in  the  other  eleven  districts  together  with  the 
minorities  in  the  13  districts  first  named  greatly  exceed  the 
total  of  the  majorities  in  the  13  districts. — For  example,  if 
the  twenty-four  districts  contained  each  10,000  voters,  6000 
voters  in  13  districts,  or  78,000  voters  could  elect  a  majority 
of  the  Board  and  disregard  the  wishes  of  162,000;  thus  a 
minority  can  under  the  present  system  rule  a  majority  of 
over  twice    its    size.     Nothing    can    be  more  undemocratic 


140 

or  contrary  to  common  sense. — In  questions  which  concern 
a  number  of  men,  they  should  all  vote  for  the  men  who  are 
to  decide  them. — This  is  done  in  all  partnerships  or  private 
corporations.  It  is  unheard  of  to  divide  the  stockholders 
or  partners  into  classes,  and  let  each  class  vote  for  a  repre- 
sentative ;  no  majority  of  men  would  expose  themselves  to 
the  risk  of  being  ruled  by  a  minority  ; — but  all  the  stock- 
holders insist  on  voting  directly  for  the  board  of  trustees. 

If  each  district  had  a  Board  of  Aldermen  of  its  own,  and 
each  of  these  Boards  elected  a  representative  to  the  general 
board,  there  would  be  reason  in  the  plan  ;  but  according  to 
all  precedent  the  members  of  a  body  which  is  a  political 
whole,  should  vote  as  a  whole  for  the  agents  who  are  to 
attend  to  the  common  interests  of  these  individuals. 

It  is  only  by  abolishing  this  district  system  and  by  elect- 
ing the  Aldermen  from  the  whole  city,  that  a  real  rule  of  the 
majority  can  be  secured,  and  all  who  favor  this  true,  demo- 
cratic principle  should  therefore  sustain  the  system  of  elect- 
ing aldermen  on  a  general  ticket  from  the  city  at  large. 

But  while  the  friends  of  this  bill  have  striven  thus  ear- 
nestly to  carry  into  effect  the  democratic  doctrine,  that  the 
majority  must  rule,  they  have  not  forgotten  the  other  demo- 
cratic doctrine  of  equal  importance  that  so  far  as  possible 
every  portion  of  the  people  should  have  a  chance  to  be 
heard  in  our  legislative  assemblies  ;  that  every  group  of  men, 
with  important  interests  in  common,  should  have  a  chance 
to  plead  its  cause  ;  "  audiatur  et  altera  pars  "  is  a  principle 
as  old  as  civilization. — While  therefore  we  desire  election 
on  a  general  ticket  from  the  whole  City,  we  have  also  re- 
cognized that  it  would  not  be  fair  or  even  desirable  that 
the  minority,  which  may  consist  of  tens  of  thousands  of 
citizens,  should  be  without  even  a  voice  in  our  City  legis- 
lature. 

But  even,  if  we  had  desired  it,  I  could  see  no  chance  of 
passing   this   bill    in    the  Assembly  until   I  recommended 


Hi 

cumulative  voting  ;  no  Republican  Assembly  will  pass  the 
bill  without  it,  and,  as,  one  house  is  generally  in  the  hands 
of  that  party,  it  is  useless  to  hope  for  a  bill,  without  some  such 
provision.  But  although  a  Democrat,  I  do  not  believe  that  it 
would  be  for  the  welfare  of  the  City  or  of  the  Party,  that  the 
Board  should  be  composed  exclusively  of  Democrats. — The 
experience  of  all  political  parties  is  that  when  either  has  an 
overwhelming  majority  it  does  not  long  retain  power.  We 
must  have  election  on  a  general  ticket,  and  this  can  be  fair 
only  if  cumulative  voting  is  allowed. 

As  to  the  practical  working  of  this  bill,  I  will  only  cite 
the  Journal  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  Illinois,  in 
favor  of  cumulative  voting. — The  question  was  subsequently 
submitted  to  the  people  and  adopted,  and  is  now  in  success- 
ful operation  in  that  State. 

Journal  of  the  Constitutional  Convention,  State  of  Illinois, 
1870. — Report  of  the  Committee  on  Electoral  and  Repre- 
sentative Reform  (p.  414)  : 

"  If  a  voter  may  now  cast  three  votes  for  three  candidates,  why 
should  he  not  be  permitted  to  give  his  three  votes  to  one  candi- 
date ?  or  two  votes  to  one,  and  one  vote  for  a  second  candidate  ? 
or  to  divide  them  equally  between  two  candidates  ? 

What  useful  purpose  is  served  by  this  inhibition  on  the  volition 
of  the  citizen  ?  By  what  right  or  authority  does  the  agent  dictate 
to  his  principal,  how  he  shall  distribute  his  votes?  If  the  people 
are  sovereign  they  should  be  left  free  to  dispose  of  their  votes  as 
seemeth  good  in  their  sight.  The  only  possible  motive  that  can 
be  adduced  for  requiring  the  elector  to  cast  but  one  vote  for  each 
candidate  in  a  triple  district,  is  to  enable  the  stronger  party  to 
elect  three  members  and  to  prevent  the  weaker  party  from  elect- 
ing any.  This  too  closely  resembles  the  gamblers'  game,  wherein 
the  parties  play  for  the  whole  stake,  the  winner  gaining  all  and 
the  loser  losing  all.  And  the  same  temptations  to  the  commission 
of  frauds,  and  cheating,  exist  in  both  games. 

The  object  of  the  unrestricted  ballot  is  to  enlarge  the  power 
and  privilege  of  the  voter.     Instead  of  obliging  him  to  distribute 


1 42 

his  votes,  it  gives  him  the  option  to  do  so,  or  ])  concentrate  them 
and  cast  a  '  'plumper"  for  his  favorite  candidate .... 

The  adoption  of  this  great  reform  would  do  much  towards 
abating  the  baseful  spirit  of  partisan  animosity,  and  removing  the 
temptations  and  opportunities  which  now  exist  for  the  corrupt 
use  of  money  at  elections  ;  much  to  prevent  the  deliberate  frauds 
on  the  purity  of  the  ballot  box,  becoming  so  alarming  and  fre- 
quent 

It  will  also  tend  powerfully  to  relieve  the  voter  from  the  des- 
potism of  party  caucuses,  and  at  the  same  time  constrain  party 
leaders  to  exercise  more  care  in  selecting  candidates  for  law- 
makers. . .  It  will  enable  virtuous  citizens  to  elect  the  ablest  and 
purest  men  in  their  midst,  and  secure  to  the  legislative  councils 
a  larger  measure  of  popular  confidence  and  respect 

The  increased  power  of  the  voter  under  the  liberty  conferred 
by  the  proposed  amendment,  may  be  thus  contrasted  with  the  ex- 
isting restrictions.  A  citizen  may  now  cast  one  vote  for  A,  B  and 
C.  If  he  erases  A  from  his  ticket,  he  loses  one  third  of  his  voting 
power.  If  he  also  erases  B,  only  one  third  of  it  remains.  But 
under  the  free  ballot,   he  may  distribute  his  voting  power  in  any 

of  the  following  ways  :  &c.    (examples  given) Thus  by  this 

system,  the  citizen  remains  in  possession  of  his  complete  fran- 
chise, and  at  the  same  time  the  theory  of  democratic  government 
is  reduced  to  practice,  and  the  minority  through  the  agents  of 
their  personal  choice,  speaks,  argues,  protests  and  votes  in  the 
law-making  body. " 

As  I  understand  that  the  gentlemen  from  the  Reform 
Club  have  prepared  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  practical 
merits  of  cumulative  voting,  I  now  pass  to  the  question 
of  constitutionality. 

Here  we  must  remember,  that  we  are  discussing  whether 
an  act  of  the  Legislature  is  contrary  to  any  provision  of  the 
State  constitution  ;  it  is  not  necessary  to  show,  as  in  the 
case  of  an  act  of  Congress,  that  the  Constitution  has  ex- 
pressly conferred  the  power  to  pass  the  act  in  question. 

People  vs.  Flagg  (46  N.  Y.,  401). 


143 

"All  legislative  power  is  conferred  on  the  Senate  and  Assembly, 
and  if  an  act  is  within  the  legitimate  exercise  of  that  power  it  is- 
valid,  unless  some  restriction  or  limitation  can  be  found  in  the 
Constitution  itself. 

The  distinction  between  the  United  States  Constitution  and  our 
State  Constitution  is  that  the  former  confers  upon  Congress  cer- 
tain specified  powers  only,  while  the  latter  confers  upon  the 
Legislature  all  legislative  power.  In  the  one  case,  the  powers, 
specifically  granted,  can  only  be  exercised.  In  the  other  all 
powers,  not  prohibited,  may  be  exercised." 

People  ex  rel.  Williams  vs.  Dayton  (55  N.  Y.  380). 

"It  must  be  born  in  mind  that  all  legislative  power  has  been 
granted  by  the  Constitution  to  the  Senate  and  Assembly,  and 
their  acts  are  held  to  be  valid  unless  restrained  by  some  provision 
of  the  instrument." 

Bank  of  Chenango  vs.  Brown  (26  N.  Y.,  467). 

People  ex  rel.  Williams  vs.  Dayton  (55  N.  Y.,  386). 

"Again  it  is  insisted  that  the  Legislature  have,  for  a  long 
time,  acted  upon  the  construction  claimed  by  the  appellants,  and 
that  the  executive  officers  of  the  State,  in  pursuance  of  its  mandate, 
have  acquiesced  in  such  construction .... 

This  argument  in  a  government  like  that  of  Great  Britain, 
where  the  constitution  consists  entirely  of  precedents  and  usages 
would  be  conclusive  ;  but  in  one  where  the  paramount  law  con- 
sists of  a  written  constitution,  solemnly  enacted  by  the  people, 
for  the  purpose  of  organizing  the  department  of  government,  de- 
fining and  limiting  their  respective  powers,  like  that  of  this  State, 
it  is  entitled  to  but  little  weight. 

Here  whenever  the  validity  of  a  legislative  act  is  challenged  as 
unauthorized  or  prohibited  by  the  Constitution,  reference  must  be 
had  to  the  instrument  itself  to  determine  the  question " 

Lemon  vs.  People  (20  N.  Y.,  602). 

' '  Every  sovereign  State  has  a  right  to  determine  by  its  laws  the 
condition  of  all  persons  who  may  at  any  time  be  within  its  juris- 
diction   


144 

What  has  been  said  as  to  the  right  of  a  sovereign  State  to  de- 
termine the  status  of  persons  within  its  jurisdiction  applies  to  the 
States  of  this  Union,  except  as  it  has  been  modified  or  restrained 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States"  (cases  cited). 

People  vs.  Draper  (15  N.  Y.,  543). 

' '  Plenary  power  in  the  Legislature,  for  all  purposes  of  civil 
government  is  the  rule,  a  prohibition  to  exercise  a  particular 
power  is  an  exception.  In  inquiring  therefore,  whether  a  given 
statute  is  constitutional,  it  is  for  those  who  question  its  validity, 
to  show  that  it  is  forbidden. " 

There  is  nothing  in  the  State  Constitution  which  pro- 
hibits the  Legislature  from  authorizing  cumulative  voting  ; 
on  the  contrary  full  power  over  this  subject  is  expressly 
given  to  the  Legislature. — Section  two  in  Article  X  pro- 
vides :  "All  city,  town  and  village  officers,  whose  election  or 
appointment  is  not  provided  for  by  this  constitution  shall  be 
elected  by  the  electors  of  such  cities,  towns  and  villages  or  of 
some  division  thereof,  or  appointed  by  such  authorities 
thereof  as  the  Legislature  shall  designate  for  that  purpose." 

The  leading  case  on  this  section  is  that  of  People  ex  rel. 
Furman  vs.  Clute  (50  N.  Y.,  459),  affirmed  in  People  ex  rel. 
Hatfield  vs.  Comstock  (78  N.  Y.,  361),  in  which  the  Court 
of  Appeals  held,  that  this  section  authorized  the  Legis- 
lature to  limit  the  class  of  persons,  from  whom  a  person 
<:ould  be  selected  to  fill  a  county  office.  The  court  says : 
**  And  the  power  is  reserved  to  the  Legislature  to  direct 
whether  by  election  or  appointment  shall  be  made  the  choice 
of  all  county  officers,  the  mode  of  the  choice  of  whom  is  not 
provided  for  by  the  Constitution  (Const.  Art.  X,  §  2)." 

The  Legislature  is  therefore  not  only  not  prohibited  from 
providing  for  city  elections  in  such  manner  as  it  may  deem 
best, — but  is  expressly  authorized  so  to  do. 

Under  the  letter  of  Constitution  it  may  provide  for  the 
election  of  county  officers  by  some  division  of  the  electors. — 
It  is  not  said  that  this  must  be  a  division  according  to  geo- 


145 

graphical  lines  ;  but  any  fraction  or  quota  may  be  directed 
to  elect  officers,  to  the  exclusion  of  others, —  if  we  claim  a 
strict  construction  of  the  constitution. 

The  Legislature  has  also  frequently  exercised  this  power, 
in  providing  for  minority  representation  in  various  ways  ; 
see  §  i,  Chapter  590,  laws  of  1857  ;  §  1,  Chapter  321,  laws 
of  1858  ;  §§  6  and  7,  Chapter  138,  laws  of  1870. 

Moreover,  Article  XIII,  §  2,  providing  for  the  calling  of 
future  constitutional  conventions,  contains  a  precisely  sim- 
ilar direction  to  the  Legislature,  as  to  the  election  of  dele- 
gates to  such  convention.  The  Constitution  provides,  that 
"  the  Legislature  at  its  next  session  shall  provide  by  law 
for  the  election  of  delegates  to  such  convention." — In  pur- 
suance of  this  authority  the  Legislature,  by  Chapter  194,  of 
laws  of  1867,  provided  : 

"Thirty  of  said  delegates  shall  be  chosen  for  the  state  at  large, 
and  may  be  voted  for  by  all  the  electors  therein  as  such  electors 
are  hereinafter  designated,  except  that  no  elector  shall  vote  for 
more  than  sixteen  of  said  delegates  at  large." 

In  pursuance  of  this  call,  the  constitutional  Convention 
was  elected,  met,  proposed  various  amendments,  which  were 
submitted  to  the  people  ;  among  these  was  Article  VI,  pro- 
viding for  an  elective  judiciary,  which  was  adopted  and  under 
it  our  judges  now  hold  office. — The  question  of  the  con- 
stitutionality of  the  act  last  cited,  was  very  fully  discussed 
in  Green  vs.  Shumwah  (39  N.  Y.,  418),  in  regard  to  the  re- 
quirement of  a  test  oath  from  all  voters, — but  not  a  word 
was  said  against  the  propriety  or  constitutionality  of  min- 
ority representation. 

The  New  York  charter  of  1873  provided  also  for  minority 
representation,  directing  among  other  things,  that  there 
should  be  six  aldermen  at  large,  but  that  no  voter  should 
vote  for  more  than  four  candidates. — This  law  continued  in 
force  until  its  repeal  in  1882.  A  question  was  raised  as 
to  its  constitutionality,  which  always  excited  more  of  ridic- 


14' 

ule  than  of  anxiety,  on  the  ground  that  the  law  violated 
§  I,  of  Art.  II,  of  the  Constitution,  which  provides,  that 
"  every  male  citizen ....  shall  be  entitled  to  vote ....  for 
all  officers  that  now  are  or  hereafter  may  be  elective  by  the 
peop'e." 

The  constitutionality  of  the  act  was  in  effect  maintained 
by  the  Special  and  General  Term  in  the  First  Department, 
and  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  this  case  was  dismissed  on  the 
ground  that  the  complainants  had  not  been  prevented  from 
voting  for  more  than  four  Aldermen,  and  consequently  had 
no  cause  of  action. 

See  People  ex  rel.  Angerstein  vs.  Kenny  (96  N.  Y.,  294). 

No  objection  of  that  kind  could  even  be  started  against 
cumulative  voting,  as  provided  in  this  bill, — because  no  cit- 
izen is  prohibited  from  voting  for  all  of  the  Aldermen  to  be 
elected,  if  he  wish  so  to  do  ; — and  consequently  this  act  is 
within  both  the  language  of  this  article  of  the  Constitution 
and  of  the  language  of  the  Court  of  Appeals. 

I  examined  the  very  point  before  I  drew  the  amendment 
to  Senator  Daly's  bill,  providing  for  cumulative  voting. 

If  however  it  were  necessary  to  argue  the  question  more 
fully,  it  could  easily  be  shown  that  this  §  1,  of  Art.  II,  re- 
ferred only  to  the  election  of  officers  by  the  people  of  the 
whole  State. — It  was  the  burning  question  in  the  Constitu- 
tional Convention  ofl82l,  to  remove  the  requirement  of  the 
constitution  of  1777,  that  all  voters  for  the  Assembly  and 
Senate  should  be  land-owners. 

This  was  accomplished  by  this  section, — but  in  all  the 
long  debates  not  a  word  is  said  about  the  election  of  county 
or  city  officers. 

In  the  Constitution  of  1846  substantially  the  same  section 
was  again  adopted, — together  with  the  additional  §  2,  of 
Art.  X,  above  cited,  expressly  authorizing  the  Legislature 
to  designate  the  manner  of  electing  the  city  and  county 
officers. 


H7 

The  chartered  privileges  of  a  city  were  held  to  be  sacred 
in  those  days;  thus  the  elder  Governor  Clinton  and  the 
majority  of  the  Council  of  Revision  had  disapproved  of  a 
bill  altering  the  franchise  in  New  York  City,  on  the  ground 
that  "charters  of  incorporation  containing  grants  and  privi- 
leges were  not  to  be  essentially  affected  without  the  consent 
of  the  parties  or  without  due  process  of  law." 

The  Constitution  of  1821  moreover  particularly  povides, 
in  §  14  of  Art.  VII.,  that  "  nothing  contained  in  this  Constitu- 
tion ....  shall  annul  any  charters  to  bodies  politic  and 
corporate  by  him  or  them  (the  King  of  Great  Britain  or  per- 
sons acting  under  his  authority)  made  .  ...  or  shall  affect 
any  such  grants  or  charters  made  by  this  State,  etc."  The 
Constitution  of  1846  contains  a  similar  provision. 

At  the  time  when  the  Constitution  of  1821  was  adopted, 
the  election  in  New  York  City  of  charter  officers  was  regu- 
lated by  Chapter  62  of  the  Laws  of  1804;  this  law  prescribed 
requirements  for  voters,  differing  from  those  of  the  Consti- 
tution; for  example,  a  residence  of  six  months  in  the  State 
was  sufficient  to  entitle  a  person  to  vote  for  charter  officers, 
while  the  Constitution  required  a  residence  of  one  year. 

If  this  §  1  of  Art.  II.  of  the  Constitution  applied  to  char- 
ter officers,  the  law  concerning  election  of  charter  officers, 
so  far  as  it  varied  from  the  Constitution,  must  have  been 
void.  But  immediately  after  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
tion the  following  act  was  passed: 

Chapter  223  of  the  Laws  of  1822.  " Whereas,  The  Mayor, 
Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  City  of  New  York,  by 
their  petition,  under  their  corporate  seal,  have  prayed  the 
Legislature  to  pass  the  hereinafter  contained  provisions* 
Therefore,  be  it  enacted  by  the  people,  etc 

§  6.  That  every  person  qualified  by  the  charter  of  the  said  city, 
to  vote  for  charter  officers,  and  every  person  qualified  to  vote 
in  any  of  the  wards  of  the  said  city,  for  members  of  the  Assem- 
bly of  this  State,  by  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  New 


148 

York,  as  amended,  shall  be  authorized  to  vote  for  such  charter 
officers  in  the  ward  where  he  actually  resides  and  not  else- 
where." 

Two  years  later  a  similar  act  was  passed:  Chapter  155, 
of  1824. 

"An  act  to  alter  the  organisation  of  the  Common  Council 
of  the  the  City  of  New  York. 

§  9.  Every  person  qualified  by  the  charter  of  the  said  city 
to  vote  for  charter  officers,  and  every  person  qualified  to 
vote  in  any  of  the  wards  of  the  said  city,  for  members  of  the 
assembly  of  this  state  by  the  constitution,  shall  be  authorized 
to  vote  for  such  charter  officers  in  the  ward  where  he  actu- 
ally resides  and  not  elsewhere  ;  and  that  no  other  person 
shall  be  authorized  to  vote  at  any  such  election. 

§  11.  That  all  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  null 
.  .  .  unless  the  same  shall  be  approved  by  a  majority  of  the 
votes  of  the  electors  of  the  City  of  New  York." 

It  is  therefore  plain  that  these  Legislatures  did  not  con- 
sider the  broader  franchise  allowed  by  the  act  of  1804  to 
be  affected  by  the  Constitution.  Frequent  subsequent  refer- 
ences to  the  qualification  of  voters  under  the  city  charter 
occur.  Thus  Amendment  Number  Six  to  the  Constitution 
of  1 82 1,  adopted  a  few  years  subsequently,  provides  that  in 
the  City  of  New  York  "the  electors  thereof  qualified  to  vote 
for  the  other  charter  officers  of  the  said  city  "  shall  annually 
choose  the  Mayor.  Similar  references  are  found  in  Chapter 
155  of  laws  of  1824  and  Chapter  23  of  laws  of  1834,  The 
courts  have  unanimously  held  that  the  acts  passed  to  carry 
into  effect  this  §  1,  of  Article  II.,  of  the  Constitution,  do  not 
apply  to  charter  elections. 

Thus  Chapter  130  of  laws  of  1842,  providing  for  general 
elections,  re-enacts  §  1,  of  Art.  II.,  of  the  Constitution,  and 
declares  that  no  court  shall  be  open  on  the  day  when  such 
election  shall  be  held.  In  the  following  case  it  was  decided 
that  this  act  did  not  apply  to  charter  elections. 


149 

Matter  of  the  Election  Law  (7  Hill,  194). 

"A  doubt  was  suggested  whether  under  the  election  law  of 
1842  the  court  could  properly  be  held  open.  In  conse- 
quence of  this  suggestion  he  (the  Chief  Justice)  had  looked 
into  the  statute  and  was  of  the  opinion  that  it  did  not  apply 

to  town  and  charter  elections The  elections  particularly 

provided  for,  and  which  are  held  in  pursuance  of  the  chapter, 
are  general  and  special  elections  for  the  choice  of  State, 
district  or  county  officers,  and  no  others.  It  is  true  that  the 
act  provides  for  the  choice  of  Inspectors  of  Elections  at 
town  meetings  and  charter  elections.  Those  meetings  and 
elections,  however,  are  not  held  in  pursuance  of  the  law  in 
question;  but  under  other  laws  specially  providing  when  and 
how  they  shall  be  held  and  conducted!' 

See  also  :  People  vs.  Tripp  (4  N.  Y.  Legal  Observer,  344); 
Wheeler  Vs.  Bartlett  (1  Edw.  Eh.  p.  323);  Redfield  vs. 
Florence  (2  E.  D,  Smith,  342);  Pitkin  vs.  McNair  (56 
Barb.,  75.)  The  qualifications  for  voters  for  township  officers 
appear  also  not  to  have  been  affected  by  the  Constitution ; 
— see  Rev.  Stat.,  p.  339,  §  1;  §  5  of  laws  of  1823,  p.  207. 

Having  thus  attempted  to  meet  the  arguments  which  may 
be  advanced  against  the  constitutionality  of  the  bill,  I  will 
close  with  a  few  remarks  in  answer  to  the  suggestion  which 
may  perhaps  be  made  that  while  this  bill  may  not  be 
against  the  letter  of  our  Constitution,  it  is  nevertheless 
an  innovation  and  against  the  spirit  of  our  institutions, 
especially  that  of  universal  suffrage,  which  all  democrats 
must  value  so  highly. 

I  believe  that  cumulative  voting  is  an  essential  part  of 
true  universal  suffrage. 

Whence  did  we  get  universal  suffrage  ?  Not  from  Eng- 
land.— The  writs  for  election  of  members  to  parliament  left 
it  entirely  undecided  how  each  borough  would  select  its  two 
representatives.  To  quote  an  authority  from  the  last  cen- 
tury :  Heywood  on  Borough  Elections  (1797),  Chapter  VI  ; 
On  the  Electors  for  cities  and  boroughs  in  general  (p.  171). 


i5o 

"The  right  of  voting  for  representatives  of  cities  and  boroughs 
is  not  (as  of  counties)  regulated  by  any  one  fixed  rule,  which  uni- 
formly pervades  the  whole  kingdom,  but  inquiry  must  be  made 
after  the  acts  of  parliament,  charters,  or  last  determinations 
afflecting  each  particular  place,  and  the  local  usage  prevailing 
there.  After  having  shown  that  the  tenants  in  ancient  demesne 
and  in  burgage,  were  probably  the  most  ancient  classes  of  voters, 
it  is  not  unreasonable  to  conclude,  that  many,  if  not  all  of  the 
present  rights  of  voting,  however  remote  their  connexion  or  an- 
alogy may  at  first  appear,  were  derived  originally  from  tenure, 
as  the  parent  stock." 

In  none  of  the  United  Sates  did  universal  suffrage  prevail 
at  the  time  of  the  Revolution,  and  the  United  States  Con- 
stitution said  not  a  word  about  extending  that  right.  It 
was  practically  unknown  for  nearly  a  generation  afterwards. 
Universal  suffrage  is  therefore  originally  neither  an  English 
nor  an  American  doctrine  ;  it  was  introduced  by  the  Demo- 
cratic party,  in  State  after  State,  under  the  influence  of  the 
example  of  France  and  the  suggestions  of  Thomas  Jefferson — 
in  this  State  thanks  chiefly  to  Martin  Van  Buren. — What  was 
the  universal  suffrage  which  Thos.  Jefferson  saw  during  his 
long  residence  in  France  ? — The  Assemblee  Nationale  of 
1789  provided,  that  each  department  should  elect  as  many 
representatives  as  it  has  thousands  of  inhabitants. — The 
Republic  of  1848  introduced  a  similar  system  ;  the  present 
Republic  in  1875  instituted  it  afresh,  and  although  this 
was  repealed,  it  has  been  again  established  and  is  now 
in  force  in  France,  with  cumulative  voting — thanks  to 
the  last  gigantic  effort  of  Gambetta. — It  is  for  this  prin- 
ciple of  the  scrutin  du  liste,  as  opposed  to  that  of  the  scrutin 
d arrondissetncnt,  that  we  are  contending  ;  we  ask  for  a  sim- 
ilar election  for  a  number  of  representatives  from  a  large 
district,  on  a  general  ticket,  with  cumulative  voting. 

The  opponents  of  this  measure  have  expressed  the  fear 
that  the  people  could  not  be  trusted  to  exercise  the  franchise 


i5i 

under    this  system  ;  but  this  argument  should  have  little 
weight  with  a  Democrat. 

It  was  this  system  of  election  of  a  number  of  repre- 
sentatives on  a  general  ticket  from  a  large  district  which 
Jefferson  saw  in  operation  when  he  wrote  to  David 
Hartley  :  "  I  have  no  fear,  but  that  the  result  of  our 
experiment  will  be,  that  men  may  be  trusted  to  govern 
themselves  without  a  master.  Could  the  contrary  of 
this  be  proved,  I  should  conclude  either  that  there  was 
no  God  or  that  he  was  a  malevolent  being."  This  plan 
has  always  been  bitterly  opposed  by  all  the  enemies  of 
Republican  France  :  anarchists,  imperialists,  royalists  and 
small  politicians. 

We  hold  with  Gambetta's  declaration  on  November  24, 
1875: 

"The  laws  which  regulate  are  as  essential,  are  as  fundamental 
for  the  future  of  society  as  those  which  established  it. " 

All  that  we  are  asking  for  is  that  the  one  essential 
element,  which  is  lacking  to  make  universal  suffrage  what 
it  was  expected  to  be,  be  added,  and  that  this  principle  be 
practically  applied,  in  its  full  strength,  on  the  plan  of  those 
who  designed  and  originated  it.  For  a  fuller  statement  on 
this  subject  I  beg  leave  to  refer  to  my  pamphlet  on  "  Uni- 
versal Suffrage  in  Cities,"  which  I  submit  herewith,  in  which 
I  also  attempt  to  show  the  necessity  of  electing  representa- 
tives to  the  Legislature  from  cities,  on  the  plan  now  advo- 
cated for  Aldermen. 

What  greater  glory  can  a  democratic  Governor  have  than 
of  initiating  the  final  stage  in  the  completion  of  this  grand 
democratic  doctrine  ? — Unless  some  wise  change  is  made,  it 
is  greatly  to  be  feared  that  in  our  city  it  cannot  maintain  its 
hold  on  the  affections  of  our  people. — We  must  abolish  this 
division  into  districts — this  remnant  of  British  feudal  and 
of  federalist  institutions,  but  this  can  not  and  ought  not  to 
be  done  without  a  provision  for  minority  representation. 


IS2 


All  that  this  bill  asks  for  is  the  true  rule  of  the  majority, 
the  representation  of  the  whole  people,  the  perfection  and 
preservation  of  universal  suffrage  ; — the  completion  of  the 
work  begun  in  this  State  by  Martin  Van  Buren. 


153 


Progress  and  Robbery. 


THREE  AMERICAN  ANSWERS  TO  HENRY  GEORGE. 


A  PROPERTY-OWNER'S  ANSWER. 


The  candidacy  of  Mr.  Henry  George  for  the  mayoralty  is 
in  one  way  peculiar  and  appears  to  me  to  demand  a  dif- 
ferent treatment  in  this  Club,  from  the  usual  mere  indorse- 
ment or  refusal  to  indorse. 

Mr.  George  is  known  personally  to  but  few  of  our 
citizens  ;  it  is  only  through  his  books  that  we  can  obtain 
information  as  to  his  character,  sympathies  and  intellectual 
ability.  As  most  of  the  members  of  this  Club  are  busy 
men,  and  yet  must  desire  to  be  informed  on  this  subject,  I 
thought  it  might  be  acceptable,  if  I  submitted  to  you  the 
result  of  my  examination  of  his  works,  especially  as  it  will 
consist  largely  in  quotations,  showing  his  opinions  on  the 
salient  points  of  his  theory. 

Mr.  George,  moreover,  represents  an  idea  ; — for  no  one 
can  deny  that  but  for  his  book  on  "Progress  and  Poverty"  he 
would  not  have  been  nominated  for  this  office.  He  is  not 
nominated  merely  because  it  is  believed  that  he  will  make 
a  good  administrative  officer,  but  because  it  is  hoped  that 
his  election  will  in  some  way  conduce  to  the  realization  of 
a  whole  theory  of  political  economy,  applicable  not  only  to 
our  City,  but  to  the  State  and  Nation.  That  this  theory  is 
of  sufficient  importance  to  deserve  the  careful  consideration 
of  this  Club,  is  evidenced,  I  consider,  by  the  general  inter- 
est which  this  nomination  of  its  representative  has  excited 
among  all  citizens. 


*54 

Among  the  masses  of  the  people  every  one  knows 
that  a  large  number  of  persons  who  have  heretofore  voted 
the  Democratic  ticket  are  considering  whether  they  will 
not  vote  for  Mr.  George,  or  have  already  made  up  their 
minds  so  to  do;  it  is  the  same  with  the  Republicans. 

The  manner  in  which  he  has  been  nominated  is  another 
matter  which  should  attract  the  attention  of  this  Club.  He 
has  not  been  nominated  by  politicians,  but  by  a  great  class 
of  our  population  ;  he  represents  in  many  ways  a  revolt 
against  present  political  methods;  he  is  brought  forward  by 
a  combination  of  organizations  whose  entrance  in  the  field 
of  politics  has  long  been  looked  forward  to  by  our  citizens 
with  mingled  feelings  of  desire  and  dread ;  he  has  been 
placed  at  the  head  of  a  force  whose  movements  statesmen 
and  politicians  have  long  been  studying  and  prognosticat- 
ing, and  which,  whatever  may  be  the  result  of  this  elec- 
tion, will  remain  a  power  for  good  or  evil  in  the  political 
horizon  for  a  long  time  to  come,  which  both  political  par- 
ties will  have  to  consider  in  their  calculations,  and  which 
may  be  so  strong  as  to  retain  permanently  the  elements 
that  may  be  attracted  to  it  from  either  party  in  this  cam- 
paign. What  theories  then  does  the  standard-bearer  of  this 
new  movement  represent  ? 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  Club  should  look  this  matter  in 
the  face  at  once,  and  consider  whether  the  principles, 
which  Henry  George  represents,  vary  from  the  teachings 
of  Democracy,  and  whether  there  is  anything  that  prevents 
a  Democrat  from  supporting  him  as  a  candidate. 

Even  if  these  questions  were  not  forced  upon  us  at  this 
time,  the  examination  of  the  doctrines  taught  in  "Progress 
and  Poverty "  appear  to  me  to  be  a  fitting  subject  for  our 
careful  consideration,  whether  we  are  inclined  to  approve 
or  disapprove  of  them,  in  view  of  the  great  spread  which, 
this  book  has  attained  both  in  this  country  and  in  England 
In  this  country  over  a  hundred  editions  are  said  to  have 


155 

Taeen  printed,  and  it  has  been  translated,  I  believe,  into  all 
the  languages  of  Europe.  Learned  societies  have  debated 
its  theories  and  clubs  have  been  formed  to  put  them  into 
practice.  Very  few  books  can  boast  of  the  reception  of  this 
work, — or  of  having  immediately  influenced  so  many  minds 
in  its  favor.  Another  reason  for  considering  this  work  is 
that  it  is  necessary  in  order  to  understand  the  full  and  cor- 
rect meaning  of  the  platform  adopted  by  the  Trade  and 
Labor  Organizations  of  New  York,  and  on  which  Mr.  George 
stands. 

The  first  section  condemns  "  the  system  which  compels 
men  to  pay  their  fellow-creatures  for  the  use  of  God's  gifts 
to  all,"  although  it  does  not  define  what  that  "  system  "  is; 
and  the  second  section  states  that  "  we  aim  at  the  abolition 
of  all  laws  which  give  to  any  class  of  citizens  advantages 
either  judicial,  financial,  industrial  or  political,  that  are 
not  equally  shared  by  all  others," — but  the  statutes  referred 
to  are  not  cited.  This  platform  was  adopted  after  the  re- 
ceipt of  a  letter  from  Mr.  George  in  which  he  promised 
conditionally  to  accept  the  nomination,  and  as  it  is  under- 
stood that  he  has  virtually  accepted  it,  we  can  go  safely  to 
his  works  to  ascertain  the  meaning  which  he,  at  all  events, 
puts  upon  this  language,  and  which  he  will  consider  him- 
self justified  to  follow  in  his  official  acts,  if  elected.  And 
no  one  can  deny  that  a  vote  for  Henry  George  will  be  con- 
strued as  an  indorsement  to  some  extent  of  his  theories. 
What  is  this  system  and  what  are  these  laws  which  are  to 
be  abolished  ? 

Mr.  George  has  certainly  been  straight-forward  and  con- 
sistent; in  his  four  books:  "Progress  and  Poverty,"  "Social 
Problems,"  "The  Irish  Land  Question"  and  "Protection  and 
Free  Trade,"  he  emits  no  uncertain  sound. 

As  the  Roman  Senator,  when  suddenly  awakened,  ex- 
claimed :  "  Carthago  delenda  est"  so  Mr.  George  would,  I 
believe,  in  similar  circumstances  exclaim  in  the  final  words 


10 

of  his  closing  chapter  in  "Protection  and  Free  Trade:"  "  Pri- 
vate property  in  land  is  doomed." 

It  is  this  cry  with  which  he  first  startled  the  world  in 
"  Progress  and  Poverty":  "  We  must  therefore  substitute  for 
the  individual  ownership  of  land  a  common  ownership.  We 
must  make  land  common  property,"  p.  295. 

In  his  "Social  Problems"  he  says,  on  page  276:  "There  is 
no  escape  from  it.     We  must  make  land  common  property." 

In  the  "  Land  Question  "  he  states:  **  In  the  very  nature  of 
things,  land  cannot  rightfully  be  made  individual  property. 
This  principle  is  absolute,"  p.  38. 

It  is  therefore  this  system  of  private  ownership  of  land, 
and  the  laws  which  sustain  this  system,  which  the  delegates 
of  the  Trade  and  Labor  Organizations  of  New  York,  in  con- 
ference assembled,  declare  it  to  be  their  aim  to  abolish,  and 
as  the  first  step  in  that  direction,  they  have  nominated  Mr. 
George  for  Mayor  of  New  York  City.  And  no  one  can 
deny  that  if  this  was  their  object,  they  have  made  a  wise 
choice  in  their  standard-bearer.  He  gives  not  merely  an 
intellectual  assent  to  the  proposition,  but  no  one  can  doubt 
his  thorough  sincerity  and  fiery  zeal. 

His  work  entitled  "  Protection  and  Free  Trade,"  published 
in  i885  is  as  outspoken  in  its  denunciations  as  his  "Progress 
and  Poverty,"  written  in  1877. 

In  the  former  he  says:  "  Property  in  land  is  as  indefens- 
ible as  property  in  man,"  (p.  349)  and  "  the  robber  that 
takes  all  that  is  left  is  private  property  in  land,"  (p.  285); 
in  the  later  he  says:  "  If  chattel  slavery  be  unjust  then  is 
private  property  in  land  unjust,"  (p.  312).  In  his  "  Land 
Question"  he  says,  on  page  36:  "Here  is  a  system  which 
robs  the  producers  of  wealth  as  remorselessly  and  far  more 
regularly  and  systematically  than  the  pirate  robs  the 
merchantman." 

In  his  "Social  Problems"  he  says:  "  Did  you  ever  see  a 
pail  of  swill  given  to  a  pen  of  hungry  hogs  ?  That  is  human 
society  as  it  is,"  (p.  102). 


157 

And,  indeed,  extravagant  as  this  language  may  sound, 
when  one  reads  the  sombre  pages  on  which  he  paints  the 
horrors  and  misery  of  poverty  and  contrasts  it  with  the  ex- 
travagance of  wealth,  in  language  and  with  pathos,  which 
has  been  rarely  surpassed,  one  feels  more  than  half  inclined 
to  adopt  Mr.  George's  plan  or  any  measure,  no  matter  how 
radical,  if  there  was  only  some  prospect  of  improvement. 

But  Mr.  George  does  not  confine  himself  to  an  appeal  to 
our  sentiments;  he  recognizes,  of  course,  that  no  matter  how 
readily  we  agree  as  to  the  misery  and  unjustifiable  inequality 
now  existing,  he  must  still  show  that  his  proposed  remedy 
will  lead  to  an  improvement,  and  also  that  it  can  be  adopted 
without  acting  contrary  to  the  precepts  of  justice. — Thus, 
he  says  in  his  "Progress  and  Poverty":  "If  private  prop- 
erty in  land  be  just,  then  is  the  remedy  I  propose  a  false 
one;  if  on  the  contrary,  private  property  in  land  be  unjust, 
then  is  this  remedy  the  true  one,"  (p.  299.) 

As  to  the  justice  of  ownership  of  things  other  than  land 
Mr.  George  is  pronounced;  in  his  "Social  Problems,"  he 
says,  on  pays  278:  "What  more  preposterous  than  the 
treatment  of  land  as  individual  property  ?  In  every  es- 
sential land  differs  from  those  things  which  being  the  pro- 
duct of  human  labor  are  rightfully  property.  It  is  the 
creation  of  God  ;  they  are  produced  by  man." 

It  is  on  this  distinction  that  he  bases  his  whole  system. 
In  his  chapter  entitled  "  Injustice  of  private  property  in 
land,"  he  says  (p.  307):  "The  right  to  exclusive  ownership 
of  anything  of  human  production  is  clear.  No  matter  how 
many  the  hands  through  which  it  has  passed,  there  was  at 
the  beginning  of  the  line  human  labor — some  one  who,  hav- 
ing procured  or  produced  it  by  his  exertions,  had  to  it  a 
clear  title  as  against  all  the  rest  of  mankind,  and  which 
could  justly  pass  from  one  to  another  by  sale  or  gift.  But 
at  the  end  of  what  string  of  conveyances  or  grants  can  be 
shown  or  supposed  a  like  title  to  any  part  of  the  material 
universe  ?" 


i5« 

I  think  that  such  a  title  can  be  shown  to  every  piece  of 
land  in  the  State  of  New  York  fit  for  human  use. 

There  is  no  reason  for  the  division  between  personal  and 
real  property,  on  the  ground  that  the  former  is  the  pro- 
duct of»man  and  the  latter  created  by  God.  God  created 
personal  property  as  certainly  as  he  did  real.  As  Mr.  George 
says  in  his  "Social  Problems"  (p.  182):  "  Man  has  no  power 
to  bring  something  out  of  nothing.  He  cannot  create  an 
atom  of  matter." 

Man  can  fashion  things  after  they  are  detached  from  the 
soil,  and  combine  them,  so  that  they  will  affect  every  one 
of  our  senses  in  a  new  manner;  but  is  any  such  change 
greater  than  that  from  a  piece  of  the  forest  primeval  to  a 
Fifth  Avenue  lot  ? 

Did  it  require  no  labor  to  drain  the  swamps,  cut  the  trees 
and  blast  the  rocks  on  this  Island  of  Manhattan,  before  it 
assumed  its  present  form,  which  Mr.  George  and  his  friends 
are  now  content  to  assume  as  their  place  of  residence  ?  Was 
not  similar  work  required  on  every  field  in  the  State  ?  Ask 
a  farmer,  who  has  reduced  a  ten-acre  lot  to  an  arable  con- 
dition, or  the  builder,  who  has  blasted  the  rock  from  a  city 
lot,  whether  Mr.  George  is  correct  when  he  says,  in  his 
"Social  Problems,"  on  page  85:  "When  land  increases  in 
value  it  does  not  mean  that  its  owner  has  added  to  the  gen- 
eral wealth." 

According  to  Mr.  George's  own  definitions,  land  can  be 
held  as  property,  because  it  is  no  more  fit  for  human  use 
without  human  labor,  than  any  piece  of  personal  property, 
and  it  is  as  senseless  to  say  of  one  part  of  the  material  uni- 
verse it  can  be  produced  by  man  without  God,  as  it  is  of  any 
other. 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  George  does  not  overlook  this 
point  of  human  labor  connected  with  land,  but  he  says 
on  the  page  last  cited:  "It  is  a  title  only  to  the  improve- 
ments and  not  to  the  land  itself."     Should  he  not  then  also 


159 

say  the  same  thing  concerning  a  diamond,  for  instance, 
which  a  lapidary  has  cut  and  polished:  "All  I  can  justly 
claim  is  the  value  given  by  these  exertions.  They  give  me 
no  right  to  the  diamond  itself."  And  yet  Mr.  George  claims 
that  as  to  personal  property  one  can  have  ownership. 

Quote  to  the  same  farmer  or  builder  the  definition  of 
property,  as  given  in  this  chapter  under  consideration,  "As  a 
man  belongs  to  himself,  so  his  labor  when  put  in  concrete 
form  belongs  to  him,"  and  ask  him  whether  he  does  not  think 
that  the  definition  would  entitle  him  to  claim  property  in  the 
lot  as  much  as  in  the  wood  or  the  stone  which  he  removes 
from  it,  and  it  would  take  even  more  than  Mr.  George's  in- 
genuity to  get  a  negative  answer  from  him. 

We  are  not  now  arguing  the  question  of  compensation  for 
improvements,  which  we  will  consider  later,  but  examining 
the  correctness  of  the  distinction  which  Mr.  George  makes 
between  property  in  land  and  property  in  other  things.  If 
there  be  no  such  broad  distinction,  as  to  require  that  the 
former  should  be  taken  and  the  latter  left,  as  Mr.  George  so 
earnestly  demands,  the  question  of  compensation,  in  case 
we  should  take  the  land,  need  not  be  considered.  Unless 
this  radical  difference  be  proven,  he  might  with  equal  pro- 
priety discuss  in  his  book  the  compensation  to  be  given 
for  improvements  to  personal  property.  Having  thus,  in 
my  opinion,  shown  that  Mr.  George's  distinction  between 
personal  property,  as  the  product  of  man,  and  real  property, 
as  the  creation  of  God,  is  untenable,  and  that  consequently 
his  whole  theory  is  indefensible,  as  he  has  expressly  based 
it  on  this  claim  to  justice,  let  us  briefly  consider  the  ques- 
tion of  justice,  without  reference  to  Mr.  George's  book. 

How  long  has  this  work  been  going  on  in  this  State  and 
City  before  they  acquired  a  form,  which  induces  Mr.  George 
and  his  friends  to  take  up  their  abode  therein  and  even 
to  desire  to  have  an  interest  in  it  ?  Where  were  these  gen- 
tlemen or  their  ancestors  during  the  two  centuries  during 


i6o 

which  this  struggle  with  animate  and  inanimate  foes  was 
going  on  ?  Did  they  take  part  in  the  Indian  wars  ?  Did 
they  fight  at  Saratoga,  or  endure  the  horrors  of  the  seven 
years'  war  ?  Did  they  struggle  for  municipal  rights  against 
the  New  Netherlands  Company,  or  assist  in  planning  the 
Constitution  of  1777  ?  Were  not  their  ancestors  the  men 
who  staid  comfortably  in  Europe  until  America  was  pre- 
pared and  put  in  order — until  the  human,  animal  and  ma- 
terial foes  were  overcome,  and  now  that  a  passage  can  be 
made  in  a  week,  and  steerage  fares  cost  perhaps  twenty 
dollars — which  is  often  advanced  to  them  by  Americans — 
they  sail  over  here  and,  not  satisfied  with  our  broad 
naturalization  laws,  then  complain  :  "American  citizen- 
ship confers  no  right  to  American  soil,"  (Social  Problems, 
p.  146).  The  Report  of  the  Charity  Organization  Society 
(which  Mr.  George  cites  to  prove  the  existing  misery)  shows 
that  over  80  per  cent,  of  beggars,  whose  cases  were  in- 
vestigated, were  not  born  in  America. 

No  matter  how  absurd  this  claim  may  now  seem  to  us,  it  is 
one  deserving  of  careful  attention — in  fact,  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at:  our  Saxon  ancestors  once  did  the  same  thing 
and  thus  gained  their  English  homes.  It  was  the  Britons 
who  invited  the  Saxons  over  from  the  Continent  to  fight 
the  Picts,  and  supported  them  and  took  them  into  their  pay, 
until  they  finally  so  increased  in  number  that  they  took  pos- 
session of  the  land  of  their  former  employers.  Human  na- 
ture has  not  changed  very  much,  and  that  they  come  over 
in  Cunarders,  instead  of  in  dragon  ships  or  coracles,  does 
not  make  their  demand  for  the  land  of  the  former  inhabi- 
tants essentially  different.  I  believe  that  the  true  character 
of  this  movement,  which  is  just  beginning,  should  be  under- 
stood by  our  real  estate  owners  and  their  friends,  so  that 
the  contest  shall  be  a  fair  and  open  one,  and  that  the 
leaders  of  neither  side  shall  increase  their  forces  or  diminish 
hat  of  their  adversary  by  false  pretenses  of  justice,  disinter- 
estedness, etc. 


i6i 

If  one  wished  to  descend  to  his  style  of  language  could  not 
the  terms  "  robber"  and  "pirate"  be  flung  back  with  perfect 
propriety  ? 

I  happen  to  have  the  correspondence  of  James  Duane  (an 
ancestor  of  mine),  who  settled  the  township  of  Duanesburgh, 
in  Schenectady  County,  with  his  agents,  extending  from 
about  1770  to  1790.  I  would  like  to  show  that  correspond- 
ence to  anyone  who  claims  that  land  is  the  free  gift  of  God 
to  man  and  can  be  used  like  air  and  water,  without  the  ex- 
penditure of  labor.  Mr.  Duane  spent  the  proceeds  of  a 
large  professional  income,  together  with  what  was,  in  those 
days,  considerable  inherited  property,  upon  building  roads, 
dams,  mills,  etc.,  through  that  region,  so  as  to  make  it  ac- 
cessible to  his  tenants;  he  advanced  them  money,  as  is 
shown  by  the  continual  begging  letters,  all  of  them  imply- 
ing confidence  in  his  generosity  or  gratitude  for  his  assist- 
ance; there  is  not  one  implying  any  dislike  or  harsh  feeling; 
a  great  part  of  the  letters  consist  in  explanations  by  the 
agent  why  the  various  tenants  did  not  meet  their  obliga- 
tions, or  requests  for  money  to  carry  out  improvements  or 
maintain  those  already  begun,  which  seemed  very  liable  to 
dilapidation.  After  representing  the  State  of  New  York  in 
every  Congress  during  the  Revolutionary  War,  and  serving 
as  first  Mayor  of  this  City  after  the  war,  until  the  Union 
was  formed,  and  then  as  first  Judge  of  the  United  States 
District  Court  of  New  York,  he  gave  up  the  latter  position, 
and  moved  up  there  and  devoted  himself  entirely  to  care 
of  this  land  until  his  death.  Would  he  have  done  this,  if 
his  descendants  were  to  have  had  no  interest  in  what  was 
then  a  wilderness  ?  And  if  he  had  not  done  it,  how  long 
would  that  land  have  remained  uncultivated  ? 

I  believe  that  the  history  of  any  portion  of  this  State, 
if  known,  would  be  very  much  the  same;  and  if  any  one 
will  consult  one  of  the  latest  books  on  the  history  of  land, 
"  The  English  Village  Community,"  by  Frederic  Seebohm 


1 62 

(London,  1883),  he  will  see  that  in  England  the  theory  of 
an  original  cultivation  of  the  land  by  a  community  of  inde- 
pendent farmers  (on  which,  on  page  331  of  "Progress  and 
Poverty,"  Mr.  George  bases  his  historical  argument)  is  a 
myth,  and  that  the  new  land  was  then  also  settled  by  some 
man  of  means  advancing  to  dependents  the  subsistence  and 
implements  required  during  the  hard  struggle  of  rendering 
land  arable.  Mr.  Seebohm  says  in  his  conclusion  (p.  438) 
on  the  village  land  system:  "  The  equality  in  its  yardlands, 
and  the  single  succession  which  preserved  this  equality,  we 
have  found  to  be  apparently  not  marks  of  an  original  free- 
dom, not  of  an  original  allodial  allotment  on  the  German 
mark  system,  but  of  a  settled  serfdom  under  a  lordship — a 
semi-servile  tenancy  implying  a  mere  usufruct,  theoretically 
only  for  life  or  at  will,  and  carrying  with  it  no  inherent 
rights  of  inheritance.  But  this  serfdom,  as  we  have  seen 
reason  to  believe,  was,  to  the  masses  of  the  people,  not  a 
degradation,  but  a  step  upward  out  of  a  once  more  general 
slavery.  Certainly  during  the  1200  years  over  which  the 
direct  English  evidence  extends,  the  tendency  has  been 
towards  more  and  more  freedom."  And  Mr.  Seebohm  im- 
plies that  the  same  facts  probably  existed  in  other  early 
agricultural  communities.  Mr.  George  based  his  views  solely 
on  what  he  saw  in  the  Great  West,  where  prairies  are  said 
to  be  almost  ready  for  the  plow  with  but  little  prelimin- 
ary labor;  and  upon  the  rapid  increase  of  real  estate  values 
in  California,  consequent  upon  the  discovery  of  gold.  From 
these  extraordinary  circumstances  he  has  evolved  a  theory 
which  he  believes  to  be  ot  general  application  and  to  which 
he  still  adheres,  although  his  subsequent  travels  and  educa- 
tion might  have  been  expected  to  have  widened  and  cor- 
rected his  views  on  this  plain  matter  of  history. 

He  says,  in  page  83  of  his  "Social  Studies:  "When  land 
increases  in  value  it  does  not  mean  that  its  owner  has  added 
to  the  general  wealth.    .  .  .    Increase  of  land  values  simply 


.    163 

means  that  the  owners,  by  virtue  of  appropriation  of  some- 
thing that  existed  before  man  was,  have  the  power  of  tak- 
ing a  larger  share  of  the  wealth  produced  by  other  people's 
labor."  However  applicable  these  remarks  may  be  to  other 
parts  of  the  country,  and  though  they  may  show  that  the 
laws  concerning  the  pre-emption  of  different  kinds  of  public 
lands  should  have  varied,  they  do  not  apply  to  this  State, 
with  its  comparatively  rugged  soil  and  thick  woods. 

What  have  real  estate  owners  done  for  the  State  of  New 
York  ?  Under  the  Constitution  of  1777,  only  those  in  the 
possession  of  land  could  vote,  and  to  the  Senate  only  land- 
owners were  admitted.  It  was  the  landowners  of  New  York 
who  enabled  that  State  to  meet  every  requisition  made  upon 
it  by  the  Continental  Congress  for  supplies,  men  and  money 
— the  only  one  of  the  thirteen  States  of  which  that  can  be 
said. 

After  forty  years,  the  landowners  peaceably  of  their  own 
accord  gave  up  this  privilege,  and  established  practically 
universal  suffrage,  through  the  Constitutional  Convention  of 
1826,  although  there  were  even  then  men  who  foresaw  the 
future.  Thus  Chancellor  Kent  said,  on  page  115  of  "Pro- 
ceedings:" 

"  It  is  to  protect  this  important  class  of  the  community 
that  the  Senate  should  be  preserved.  It  should  be  the 
representative  of  the  landed  interest,  and  its  security  against 
the  caprice  of  the  motley  assemblage  of  paupers,  emigrants, 
journeymen  manufacturers,  and  those  undefinable  classes  of 
inhabitants  which  a  State  and  city  like  ours  is  calculated 
to  invite.     This  is  not  a  fancied  alarm. 

Universal  suffrage  jeopardizes  property,  and  puts  it  into 
the  power  of  the  poor  and  profligate  to  control  the  affluent." 

He  was  answered  by  Mr.  Root  :  "  We  have  no  different 
estates  having  different  interests,  necessary  to  be  guarded 
from  encroachment  by  the  watchful  eye  of  jealousy  .  .  .  We 
are  all  the  same  estate,  all  commoners  .  .  .  These  powerful 


164 

checks  may  be  necessary  between  different  families  possess- 
ing adverse  interests,  but  can  never  be  salutary  among 
brothers  of  the  same  family,  whose  interests  are  similar," 
(p.  116.) 

What  would  have  been  the  action  of  that  Convention,  if 
Mr.  George's  language  had  been  heard  in  it  ?  Would  he 
and  his  friends  now  be  voters  ?  Does  he  subscribe  to  the 
honeyed  phrases  of  that  advocate  of  universal  suffrage,  or 
are  those  former  "brothers  "  now  called  robbers  and  pirates, 
among  whom  must  be  included  of  course  Washington, 
Franklin,  Madison,  Jackson  and  probably  every  name  which 
Americans  have  been  taught  to  revere. 

I  would  pass  now  from  the  main  point  of  Mr.  George's 
theory,  assuming  that  it  has  appeared  that  Mr.  George's 
distinction  between  real  and  personal  property  is  baseless, 
and  that  property  in  the  one  is  as  sacred  as  in  the  other, 
and  that  consequently  the  question  of  compensation  for  im- 
provements on  land,  taken  by  the  public,  will  not  arise, 
because  the  land  may  not  be  taken.  But  in  order  to  give 
a  more  complete  view  of  Mr.  George's  theory,  let  us  con- 
sider for  a  moment  his  plan  for  compensation. 

He  assumes  that  there  are  two  kinds  of  improvements  to 
land,  for  one  of  which  only  compensation  is  to  be  made. 

He  says  on  page  308  of  "  Progress  and  Poverty:"  "There 
are  improvements  which  in  time  become  indistinguishable 
from  the  land  itself.  Very  well ;  then  the  title  to  the  im- 
provements becomes  blended  with  the  title  to  the  land ; 
the  individual  right  is  lost  in  the  common  right." 

But  he  says  this  in  the  chapter  on  "  injustice  of  private 
property  in  land,"  in  which  he  has  undertaken  to  show  that 
this  common  right  exists  according  to  the  principles  of 
justice;  and  yet  here  he  assumes  that  it  is  already  proven 
and  justified,  to  the  negation  of  the  right  even  of  compen- 
sation for  improvements. — This  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the 
logical  mind  of  our  would-be  future  Mayor. 


i65 

But  what  are  these  "  indistinguishable  "  improvements  ; 
the  term  is  rather  vague.  Naturally  one  would  suppose 
that  it  would  include  the  results  of  the  first  attempts  to 
render  wild  land  fit  for  cultivation  or  habitation  ;  such  as 
the  building  of  roads,  bridges  and  dams  in  agricultural 
lands,  and  clearing  away  the  stones  and  other  objects, 
which  impede  cultivation;  and  in  the  city,  levelling  the 
ground,  making  the  necessary  excavations,  etc. — I  do  not 
know  what  else  can  be  intended  by  these  "indistinguish- 
able" improvements. 

I  would  not  ask  Mr.  George  whether  this  is  fair  or  honest, 
but  I  would  ask  him  whether  it  is  consistent  with  giving 
compensation  for  any  improvements  ? 

Houses  and  barns,  I  suppose,  would  be  improvements,  if 
any  thing  would,  whose  value  is  distinguishable  from  that 
of  the  land;  but  why  should  the  labor  spent  on  the  erection 
of  the  building  be  compensated,  and  not  that  spent  on  the 
preparation  of  the  site  or  digging  the  foundation  ? 

The  real  object  of  this  distinction  between  these  two 
classes  of  improvements  appears  to  be  to  form  a  loop-hole 
through  which  Mr.  George  can  creep,  whenever  he  is 
pressed  on  this  point,  so  as  to  suit  the  wishes  of  his  inter- 
locutor. But  his  real  spirit  with  which  he  would  select  the 
"  indistinguishable"  improvements  is  shown  plainly  enough 
throughout  his  works.  He  says  in  his  "  Land  Question,"  on 
page  38:  "  1  have  dwelt  so  long  upon  this  question  of  com- 
pensating landowners,  not  merely  because  it  is  of  great 
practical  importance,  but  because  its  discussion  brings 
clearly  into  view  the  principles  upon  which  the  land  ques- 
tion in  Ireland,  or  in  any  other  country,  can  alone  be  justly 
and  finally  settled.  In  the  light  of  these  principles  we  see 
that  the  landowners  have  no  rightful  claim  either  to  the 
tand  or  to  compensation  for  its  resumption  by  the  people, 
and,  further  than  that,  we  see  that  no  such  rightful  claim 
can  ever  be  created.  It  would  be  wrong  to  pay  the  present 
landowners  for  "  their"  land  at  the  expense  of  the  people." 


i66 

On  page  36  he  says:  "  Yet  we  are  told that  this 

system  cannot  be  abolished  without  buying  off  those  who 
profit  by  it.  Was  there  ever  more  degrading  debasement 
before  a  fetish  ?" 

Moreover,  who  would  pay  for  these  improvements,  if  any 
were  paid  for  ?  It  would  be  one  landowner  who  would  pay 
the  other,  for  he  contemplates  the  abolition  of  all  other 
taxes.  He  says,  on  page  281  of  "Social  Problems:"  "Were 
land  treated  as  the  property  of  the  whole  people,  the  ground 
rent  accruing  to  the  community  would  suffice  for  public  pur- 
poses and  all  other  taxation  might  be  dispensed  with." 
Literally  his  greatest  advance  towards  compensating  the 
landowners  consists  in  robbing  Peter  to  pay  Paul. 

The  last  point  in  Mr.  George's  theories  to  which  I  think 
it  necessary  to  refer,  is  his  proposed  method  of  accomplish- 
ing his  great  reforms.  He  says,  on  page  364  of  "Progress 
and  Poverty:"  "I  do  not  propose  either  to  pur- 
chase  or  to  confiscate  private  property  in  land.     The   first 

would  be  unjust;  the  second,  needless We   may 

safely  leave  them  the  shell  if  we  take  the  kernel.  //  is  not 
necessary  to  confiscate  land ;  it  is  only  necessary  to  confiscate 

rent We  already  take  some  rent  in  taxation.     We 

have  only  to  make  some  changes  in  our  modes  of  taxation 
to  take  it  all."  The  naivete  of  these  remarks  is  refreshing. 
"  Taking  property"  has  a  bad  name  in  civilized  countries; 
even  professed  criminals  prefer  to  avoid  it,  and  to  speak  of 
divided  the  stuff,  the  boodle  or  the  swag.  But  if  Mr.  George 
thinks  that  anyone  is  deceived  by  this  use  of  terms,  it  shows 
that  he  has  great  simplicity  of  mind.  Of  course  this  would 
make  the  city  or  the  State  the  landlord,  with  the  accom- 
panying duties  and  responsibilities;  how  they  would  be  ful- 
filled it  is  needless  to  explain  to  gentlemen  so  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  present  workings  of  our  government,  as 
the  members  of  this  Club.  Mr.  George  says,  on  page  410: 
"Government  would  change  its  character  and  would  be- 


1 67 

come  the  administration  of  a  great  co-operative  society.  It 
would  become  merely  the  agency  by  which  the  common 
property  was  administered  for  the  common  benefit." 

As  to  the  manner  in  which  the  money  is  to  be  spent  and 
the  benefits  to  be  derived  therefrom,  Mr.  George  gives 
glowing  pictures.  The  Reverend  Heber  Newton  summed 
the  matter  up  in  his  speech  at  the  so-called  Business  Men's 
Meeting  of  last  week,  when  he  said:  "We  are  going  to  clear 
the  way  for  the  millenium."  Mr.  George  describes,  in  his 
"  Social  Problems,"  on  page  323,  the  ordinary  farmer,  living 
"with  a  daily  average  of  two  or  three  hours'  work,  which 
more  resembled  healthy  recreation  than  toil;"  that  his 
family  "  should  be  able  to  visit  the  theatre,  or  concert  or 
opera  as  often  as  they  cared  to,  and  occasionally  to  make 
trips  to  other  parts  of  the  country  or  to  Europe." 

In  his  argument  in  favor  of  free  trade,  which  he  also  claims 
can  be  brought  about  only  through  the  appropriation  of  all 
land,  he  says,  on  page  334  of  "  Protection  and  Free  Trade:" 
"An  English  Democrat  puts  in  this  phrase  the  aim  of  true 
Free  Trade  :  '  No  taxes  at  all,  and  a  pension  to  everybody.' 

If  this  is  Socialism,  then  it  is  time  that  Free  Trade 

leads  to  Socialism." 

Is  this  the  language  of  a  practical  man  ? 

We  have  not  time  here  for  me  to  undertake  to  show 
the  hopelessness  of  any  real  improvement  of  the  con- 
dition of  the  workingmen  through  these  theories  ;  I  would 
refer  you  to  the  criticisms  by  Mr.  John  Rae  in  "  Contem- 
porary Socialism  "  and  to  Mr.  Mallock's  book  on  this  sub- 
ject ;  but  I  would  call  your  attention  to  this  fact,  that  in 
his  earlier  work  he  promised  the  Millenium,  if  his  plan  were 
adopted.  Thus  he  says  in  "  Progress  and  Poverty,"  on  page 
295:  "  To  extirpate  poverty ....  we  must  therefore  substi- 
tute for  the  individual  ownership  of  land  a  common  owner- 
ship." But  in  his  later  book,  "Social  Problems,"  he  says 
on  page  273:     "  Yet   we  might    recognize    the    equal  right 


1 68 

to  the  land  and  tyranny  and  spoliation  be  continued,  .  .  . 
I  fully  recognize  the  fact  that  even  after  we  do  this,  much 
will  remain  to  do." 

Would  it  not  be  well  to  wait  until  his  plan  is  complete, 
before  pulling  down  our  present  dwelling  ?  How  much 
more  "  will  remain  to  do,"  before  his  glowing  phantasies  are 
to  become  realities  ?  Does  this  uncertain  prophet  deserve 
to  be  followed  by  the  workingmen  into  a  conflict  with  the 
great  class  of  real  estate  owners  and  their  friends  ? 

I  would  further  call  attention  to  this  fact  that  Mr.  George's 
arguments  are  nothing  new.  They  bear  a  strong  resemblance 
to  those  of  Proudhon  in  his  book  entitled:  "  Qu'est  ce  que  la 
Proprie'te?"  to  which  he  answers:  "Property  is  theft." 
Proudhon  claimed  that  property  in  movables  was  as  wrong 
as  property  in  land, — but  another  Frenchman,  Considerant, 
attempted  to  draw  the  same  distinctions  which  Mr.  George 
has  drawn  between  real  and  personal  property,  and  prove 
the  lawfulness  of  the  latter.  Mr.  George  and  Considerant 
also  use  very  much  the  same  arguments. 

Nowhere,  however,  that  I  can  find,  does  Mr.  George  cite 
Considerant;  although  he  is  evidently  familiar  with  French 
writers,  as  he  has  dedicated  his  "  Protection  and  Free 
Trade"  "to  the  memory  of  those  illustrious  Frenchmen  of 
a  century  ago,  Quesnay,  Turgot,  Mirabeau,  Condorcet,  Du- 
pont  and  their  fellows,  who  in  night  of  despotism  foresaw 
the  glories  of  the  coming  day."  Mr.  George  then  proceeds 
to  argue  in  favor  of  abolition  of  property  in  land, — 
without  mentioning  Considerant.  It  is,  of  course,  pos- 
sible that  Mr.  George  has  so  superficially  studied  this 
subject  that  he  did  not  hear  of  the  writings  of  that 
author,  and  that  the  resemblance  in  the  arguments  is 
purely  accidental.  It  is  as  probable  that  a  man  writing 
on  electricity  should  not  have  heard  the  name  of  Benjamin 
Franklin,  or  on  abolition  of  slavery  and  should  not  have 
heard  the  name  of  Abraham  Lincoln.     But  be  this  as    it 


169 

may,  there  is  nothing  new  in  Mr.  George's  arguments;  they 
have  been  promulgated  half  a  century  ago  by  unprincipled 
Frenchmen  in  a  dozen  ways,  and  the  Paris  Commune  was 
an  attempt  to  realize  them. 

If  we  draw  a  conclusion  as  to  Mr.  George's  character 
from  these  works,  can  we  conclude  anything  except  that  his 
mind  is  that  of  an  illogical,  unpractical  and  dangerous 
fanatic  ? 

At  all  times  progress  has  had  to  be  on  its  guard  against 
robbery.  We  have  seen  what  the  system  and  the  laws  are 
which  this  platform  demands  shall  be  abolished.  It  is  true 
that  the  Mayor  is  supposed  to  be  an  administrative  officer; 
but  cannot  the  Mayor  of  New  York  do  something  to  carry 
out  these  principles  ?  In  the  first  place  he  is  a  member 
of  the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment,  which 
has  the  power,  practically  without  limitation,  of  determin- 
ing the  amount  of  money  to  be  raised  each  year  by  taxa- 
tion. This  Board  consists  of  four  members;  one  of  them, 
the  President  of  the  Department  of  Taxes  and  Assessments, 
is  appointed  by  the  Mayor.  Should  a  vacancy  occur  in  that 
office,  the  Mayor  might  appoint  a  friend  entertaining  his^ 
views,  and  they  would  have  one-half  the  Board.  But  with- 
out that,  the  tax  levy  can  only  be  fixed  by  the  unanimous 
vote  of  all  the  four  members  on  each  item;  every  member 
can  veto  any  item,  unless  he  is  satisfied  with  the  appropria- 
tion as  a  whole.  Mr.  George  can,  therefore,  demand  that 
an  immense  sum  should  be  raised  next  year  by  taxation,  or 
he  might  by  refusing  to  agree  with  any  items  cripple  the 
entire  city  government.  That  his  power  would  be  immense, 
of  that  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

The  Mayor  also  appoints  the  Board  of  Taxes  and  Assess- 
ments, which  in  turn  appoints  Deputy  Tax  Commissioners, 
who  fix  the  valuation  of  real  estate  in  their  several  districts 
for  purposes  of  taxation. — (Sec.  14  of  the  Consolidation 
Act  of  1882.) 


170 

Even  if  Mr.  George  should  not  appoint  directly  to  these 
offices,  it  is  well  known  that  with  his  patronage  he  could 
probably  influence  their  appointment,  so  as  to  obtain  the 
positions  for  persons  in  sympathy  with  him,  and  every  one 
knows  how  easily  these  officials  could  change  the  present 
valuation  of  real  estate. 

Then  the  chief  practical  defense  of  house-owners  in  this 
city  comes  through  the  summary  proceedings,  which  are 
executed  by  the  Marshals  of  the  District  Courts.  These 
officers  are  appointed  by  the  Mayor,  and,  like  other  city 
officials,  removed  only  by  him.  If  he  should  nominate  some  of 
his  present  supporters,  fresh  from  reading  his  "Social  Prob- 
lems," where,  on  page  155,  he  states  that  certain  landlords 
"are  of  no  more  use  than  so  many  great  ravenous,  destructive 
beasts,  packs  of  wolves,  herds  of  wild  elephants,  or  such 
dragons  as  St.  George  is  reported  to  have  killed,"  and  a 
complaint  should  be  brought  before  him  against  a  marshal 
for  neglect  of  duty  in  a  dispossess  proceeding, — what  atten- 
tion would  it  be  likely  to  receive  ?  Behind  the  marshall,  for 
protection  of  all  property  stand  the  police  ;  what  sort  of 
men  will  Mr.  George's  Police  Commissioners  be  apt  to  ap- 
point ? 

We  see,  therefore,  that  a  Mayor  of  New  York,  with  Mr. 
George's  views,  might  do  much  to  carry  them  into  effect. 
Probably  in  no  position  in  the  world,  under  our  present  laws, 
could  more  be  done  in  this  direction.  It  is  indeed  rare  that 
an  enthusiast  of  that  type  has  a  chance  to  attempt  to  realize 
such  dreams,  and  Mr.  George  will  be  a  good  deal  less  sin- 
cere than  his  book  shows  him  to  be,  if  he  does  not  use  this 
wonderful  opportunity  to  the  utmost. 

I  submit,  therefore,  that  all  good  citizens  should  oppose 
his  candidacy. 

But  particularly,  as  Democrats,  what  ought  we  to  do  ? 

The  fundamental  principle  of  the  Democracy  has  always 
been  that  of  admiration  and  steadfast  adherence  to  the  Con- 


171 

•stitution  and  laws  authorized  by  that  Constitution.  What 
have  they  to  say  on  this  subject  ? 

The  United  States  Constitution  declares  in  the  Fifth 
Amendment:  "Nor  shall  private  property  be  taken  for 
public  use  without  just  compensation." 

We  have  seen  the  important  part  which  landowners 
played  in  the  formation  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Section  6  of  the  New  York  State  Constitution  is  to  the 
same  effect,  and  Sec.  13  of  this  Constitution  says:  "All 
lands  within  this  State  are  declared  to  be  allodial,  so  that, 
subject  only  to  the  liability  to  escheat,  the  entire  and  abso- 
lute property  is  vested  in  the  owners,  according  to  the 
nature  of  their  respective  estates." 

Section  8,  of  II.  Revised  Statutes,  p.  719,  declares:  "  Every 
citizen  of  the  United  States  is  capable  of  holding  lands 
within  this  State,  and  of  taking  the  same  by  descent,  devise 
or  purchase." 

This  indeed  is  no  new  doctrine;  it  was  imbedded  in  Magna 
Charta,  which  declared  that  no  freeman  shall  be  disseised 
or  divested  of  his  freehold,  or  of  his  liberties  or  free  customs, 
but  by  the  judgment  of  his  peers,  or  by  the  law  of  the  land. 
Blackstone,  in  his  "Commentaries,"  Vol.  I.,  p.  129,  declares 
that  the  three  absolute  rights  of  individuals  are:  "The 
right  of  personal  security,  the  right  of  personal  liberty,  and 
the  right  of  prrivate  property;"  and  Chancellor  Kent,  in 
Vol.  II.,  p.  1,  of  his  "Commentaries,"  uses  the  same  lan- 
guage. Elliott's  "Constitutional  Debates,"  on  the  adoption 
of  the  United  States  Constitution  in  the  different  States  are 
full  of  allusions  to  the  protection  of  property  in  land,  which 
this  Constitution  would  afford. 

That  our  Constitution  and  laws  recognize  no  principle  as 
more  fundamental  and  sacred  than  that  of  private  property 
in  land  is  therefore  undeniable. 

But  Mr.  George  would  perhaps  say  that  he  does  not 
demand  that  the  title  to  land  should  be  taken,  but  only  the 
rent,  and  therefore  that  he  does  not  take  property. 


172 

He  might  claim  that  property  meant  the  thing  which  is 
the  object  of  ownership  and  not  the  aggregate  of  rights 
which  an  owner  has  over  the  thing,  so  that  property  was  not 
taken  when  an  owner  was  deprived  of  one  of  these  essential 
rights,  such  as  that  of  rent,  but  only  when  the  thing  itself 
was  removed  or  interfered  with.  But  the  recent  long 
line  of  cases  in  the  suits  against  the  Elevated  Railroads 
have  settled  in  this  State  that  property  means  the  aggre- 
gate of  rights  and  not  the  thing  owned.  Probably  the  most 
recent  decision  is  that  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  the  matter 
of  Jacobs  (98  N.  Y.,  105). 

"The  constitutional  guaranty  that  no  person  shall  be 
deprived  of  his  property  without  due  process  of  law  may 
be  violated  without  the  physical  taking  of  property  for 
public  or  private  use.  Property  may  be  destroyed,  or  its 
value  may  be  annihilated  .  .  .  any  law  which  destroys  it 
or  its  value,  or  takes  away  any  of  its  essential  attributes, 
deprives  the  owner  of  his  property." 

However,  Mr.  George  would  hardly  dare  to  make  this 
contention,  in  view  of  his  oft  repeated  use  of  the  term 
property,  in  its  correct  sense,  as  defined  by  the  courts;  thus, 
on  page  343,  of  "  Protection  and  Free  Trade,"  he  says:  "  The 
only  way  to  abolish  private  property  is  by  the  way  of  taxa- 
tion.    That  way  is  clear  and  straightforward." 

Since  then  this  direct  conflict  exists  between  Mr.  George's 
opinions  and  the  "aims"  of  his  platform  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  on  the  other,  and  since 
it  is  also  by  no  means  clear  which  of  these  "aims"  are  at 
once  to  be  put  into  practice,  and  since  the  peculiar  boast 
of  the  Democracy  has  always  been  its  conservative  strict 
adherence  to  the  Constitution,!  do  not  see  how  any  Democrat 
can  support  Mr.  George. 

However,  I  do  not  see  how  Mr.  George  can  accept  this 
office,  if  elected.  How  can  he  swear  to  support  the  Con- 
stitution and  laws  of  this  State  as  they  now  exist,  while  he 


173 

maintains  the  views  expressed  in  his  works  ? — No  matter 
how  he  may  hedge  in  his  letter  of  acceptance,  I  do  not 
believe  that  he  can,  if  he  would,  free  his  mind  from  the 
passions  which  these  years  of  controversy  have  engendered, 
and  see  to  the  administration  of  these  laws,  so  abhorrent  to 
him,  according  to  their  letter  and  their  spirit.  If  he  were  run- 
ning for  the  Constitutional  Convention,  this  objection  would 
not  exist;  but  to  attempt  to  fill  the  position  of  Mayor, without 
abolishing  our  present  system,  but  according  to  the  true 
meaning  of  the  laws  now  in  force,  ought  to  be  thoroughly 
abhorrent  to  him,  if  he  means  half  of  what  he  has  said.  — 
I  can  not  imagine  his  taking  that  oath,  without  mental 
reservations,  which  would  make  it  practically  perjury; — and 
I  believe  that  those  who  approve  of  his  making  such  an 
attempt  and  aid  him  in  it,  by  their  votes,  are  not  much 
better  than  accomplices  before  the  act. 

Finally,  I  wish  to  state  that  these  remarks  have  been 
made  with  no  feeling  of  hostility  to  the  workingmen.  In  my 
humble  way  I  have  for  years,  by  various  publications,  done 
what  I  could  to  induce  them  to  go  into  politics;  I  believe  it 
is  a  necessary  movement,  and  in  time  will  be  a  salutary 
one.  But  I  object  to  this  great  movement,  the  most  im- 
portant one  which  will  probably  occur  in  our  generation, 
instead  of  being  utilized  in  a  practical  manner  for  the  bene- 
fit of  all,  being  turned  aside  to  attack  one  class  of  our 
fellow-citizens.  Henry  George  says,  in  his  "  Progress  and 
Poverty,"  (p.  282):  "  Nor  in  the  struggle  of  endurance  must 
it  be  forgotten  who  are  the  real  parties  pitted  against  each 

other It  is  laborers  on  the  one  side  and  the  owners 

of  land  on  the  other."  This  will  not  be  the  first  of  these 
conflicts.  The  history  of  the  Dark  Ages — of  the  13th,  14th 
and  15th  centuries — is  red  with  the  blood  spilt  in  the  cities 
of  Europe  in  the  fights  between  the  trade  unions  and 
the  real  estate  owners;  every  man  who  reads  that  history 
must  feel  it  his  duty  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  prevent  the 
kindling  of  such  a  conflict  here. 


i.74 

While  we  can  all  hope  that  the  contingency  of  such  fear- 
ful contests  is  still  remote,  we  must  recognize  that  even  this 
peaceful  strife  at  the  polls  of  these  two  great  classes  pre- 
vents their  uniting  their  forces  and  righting  the  many 
wrongs  which  they  jointly  suffer.  I  do  not  say  that  this 
contest  has  been  engineered  by  the  railroad  kings,  poli- 
ticians and  monopolists,  who  thrive  in  the  present  disorgan- 
ized state  of  society,  but  I  do  say  that  nothing  could  have 
happened  more  opportunely  for  them,  and  that  if  they  can 
only  fan  the  flame,  they  have  gained  a  new  lease  of  life. 
Moreover,  with  our  system  of  government  the  danger  of 
diffusion  of  these  ideas  among  persons  who  have  not  oppor- 
tunity or  ability  to  thoroughly  examine  them  and  see  their 
fallacy,  presents  a  great  danger,  which  all  good  citizens 
should  oppose.  Mr.  George's  arguments  apply  to  personal 
property  as  well  as  to  real;  a  movement  started  against  the 
latter  cannot  be  stopped  there;  in  all  his  books  there  is  no 
formula  that  will  lay  the  evil  spirits,  if  they  once  break 
loose.  The  arguments  of  his  master,  Proudhon,  he  cannot 
refute.  He  is  a  preacher  of  Communism,  although  he  wants 
to  stop  half  way.  It  is  the  interest  of  all  owners  of  prop- 
erty, real  or  personal,  to  oppose  to  the  utmost  the  spread 
of  the  influence  of  this  demi-communist. 


175 


A  BUSINESS  MAN'S  ANSWER. 


FINALLY,  let  us  examine  Mr.  George's  theories  from 
the  standpoint  of  a  New  York  business  man. 

His  main  proposition  is  that  there  exists  an  "  unearned 
increment,"  which  the  State  should  take  from  land-owners. 
Thus  he  says  on  page  295  of  his  Social  Problems  : 

"As  society  grows,  so  grows  this  value,  which  springs 
from  and  represents  in  tangible  form  what  society  as  a 
whole  contributes  to  production  as  distinguished  from 
what  is  contributed  by  individual  exertion.  .  .  .  Here 
is  a  fund  belonging  to  society  as  a  whole,  from  which, 
without  the  degradation  of  alms,  private  or  public,  pro- 
vision can  be  made  for  the  weak,  the  helpless,  the  aged  ; 
from  which  provision  can  be  made  for  the  common  wants 
of  all,  as  a  matter  of  common  right  to  each,  etc." 

But  Mr.  George  nowhere  proposes  that  society  shall 
return  the  "  unearned  detriment." 

If  the  State  of  New  York  should  undertake  to  return 
all  the  money  invested  in  lands  in  this  State,  with  interest, 
and  take  the  land  in  return,  I  doubt  if  it  would  make  a 
good  bargain.  There  is  good  farming  land  in  Westches- 
ter County  which  does  not  now  sell  for  as  much  as  it  cost 
to  put  up  its  stone  fences. 

If  investors  and  builders  do  not  come  to  a  neighbor- 


i;6 

hood,  can  the  unfortunate  speculator  call  upon  the  city 
to  take  his  land  at  what  he  paid  for  it,  with  fair  interest? 
If  not,  why  should  he  be  obliged  to  surrender  the  profit 
which  he  has  acquired  by  his  superior  foresight  ? 

Mr.  Georges  friends  evidently  suppose  that  investors 
and  builders  do  no  work,  in  selecting  sites,  etc.,  but  trust  to 
luck.  I  recently  asked  a  successful  builder  why  he  had 
purchased  a  certain  site  for  some  houses  on  the  outskirts 
of  Brooklyn.  He  said  that  he  had  counted  that  there 
were  so  many  families  living  in  houses  beyond  these  lots, 
and  that  they  had  to  pass  them  in  order  to  go  to  the 
nearest  stores  ;  he  counted  the  number  of  passers-by,  con- 
sidered their  probable  wealth,  the  chances  of  the  neigh- 
borhood remaining  a  respectable  one,  etc.,  and  finally 
decided  that  by  purchasing  those  lots  at  such  a  price  and 
erecting  stores  on  them,  the  tenants  of  those  stores  could 
make  certain  profits,  which  would  enable  them  to  pay 
him  a  certain  rent. 

His  calculations  proved  to  be  successful ;  the  stores 
met  a  need  of  that  neighborhood,  and  he  secured  a  fair 
profit.  Should  now  the  City  or  the  State  come  in  and 
demand  that  profit  from  him,  and  distribute  it  among  all 
the  inhabitants,  who  had  given  no  thought  to  the  matter  ? 
If  the  State  should  do  so,  would  this  man  be  encouraged 
to  select  another  site,  and  undergo  the  worry  and  excite- 
ment of  erecting  other  buildings,  which  would  so  exactly 
meet  a  public  demand? 

If  this  principle  is  to  be  applied  to  profits  made  from 
investments  in  lands,  why  not  to  other  investments  ?  For 
example,  a  milliner  foresees  that  taste  is  taking  a  certain 
direction,  and  that  certain  ornamentation  will  become 
fashionable,  and  manufactures  and  lays  in  a  store  of  it ; 
shall  her  entire  profit  be  taken,  when  people  come  and 
wish  to  have  that  particular  ornament,  or  shall  only  a 
certain  per  cent,  be  taken,  and  if  so,  what  per  cent.? 


177 

Or,  it  a  man  foresees  that  a  certain  place  will  have  a 
rapid  increase  in  population,  and  opens  a  store  and 
transports  a  large  stock  of  goods,  and  proceeds  to  meet 
the  urgent  demand,  are  his  profits  to  be  taken?  Are 
they  not  due  to  the  increase  of  the  population,  just  as 
much  as  the  increase  in  the  land  values  of  that  place  ? 

On  page  82  of  his  '•  Social  Problems,"  Mr.  George 
makes  the  arguments  against  allowing  profits  to  land- 
owners apply  to  owners  of  patent-rights  and  other  per- 
sonal property,  although  copyrights  are  not  mentioned. 

This  is  only  another  evidence  that  these  theories  are 
applicable  to  personal  property,  if  they  apply  to  real 
estate,  and  would  put  a  stop  to  all  speculative  invest- 
ments, which,  in  effect,  only  tend  to  preserve  the  fruits 
of  the  earth  for  a  time  when  the  people  will  have  more 
need  of  them  than  at  present. 

But  Mr.  George  makes  no  practical  suggestion  as  to 
how  this  "  unearned  increment "  is  to  be  calculated.  In 
what  does  the  "earned  increment"  consist?  Land  in 
a  desert,  without  inhabitants,  has  not  much  value ;  who 
settles  a  new  country,  except  under  the  belief  that  it  will 
be  populated?  Mr.  George  says,  in  the  passage  above 
cited,  that  society  contributes  its  share  in  a  "  tangible 
form,"  but  he  does  not  say  with  which  of  our  senses  this 
is  to  be  recognized.  What  a  chance  for  corruption  and 
favoritism  would  be  opened  by  the  attempt  to  carry  out 
such  a  scheme ! 

But  Mr.  George  does  not  condescend  to  give  us  any 
details  as  to  how  this  shall  be  done  ;  his  only  practical 
proposition  is  that  all  land  shall  be  taxed  up  to  its  rental 
value,  so  that  the  owners  shall  surrender  it  to  the  State 
and  the  State  is  then  to  proceed  to  act  the  part  of  land- 
lord. Let  us  suppose  that  all  this  has  been  done  and  the 
land  in  the  city  has  been  acquired  by  the  municipality  or 
,State,  which  then  proceeds  to  offer  to  lease  it  to  individ- 


i;3 

uals.  Of  course,  in  a  city  long  leases  would  have  to  be 
given,  especially  if  repairs  or  improvements  are  to  be 
made  by  the  tenants ;  large  private  corporations  have 
found  it  advisable  to  give  leases  for  twenty-one  years 
with  covenants  for  two  or  three  renewals.  What  prices 
would  the  city  be  apt  to  realize  ?  An  intending  bidder 
would,  of  course,  wish  to  know  how  secure  the  title 
would  be  for  which  he  was  expected  to  give  value ;  he 
would  want  to  feel  sure  that  the  fee  or  term  of  years 
which  he*  acquired  would  remain  in  him  undisturbed. 
He  would  naturally  inquire  as  to  what  had  been  the  pre- 
vious history  of  such  purchasers  of  the  fee  or  of  leasehold 
interests  from  the  city  or  from  the  State,  and  what  would 
he  find? 

If  he  traced  back  the  title  to  any  piece  of  ground, 
he  would  come  to  a  ground-brief  from  the  Dutch  authori- 
ties, or  a  grant  from  the  British  Crown ;  and  back  of  that 
there  was  a  purchase  from  the  Indian  inhabitants  of  this 
island.  The  Crown,  which  represented  the  State— the 
public  of  that  day — received  a  valuable  consideration  for 
the  conveyance ;  that  money  went  into  the  public  treas- 
ury, and  an  instrument  was  executed  by  the  highest 
authority  in  the  land,  representing  the  people,  conveying 
and  assuring  to  the  grantee  the  absolute  title  to  the  land 
to  himself,  and  his  heirs  and  assigns  forever,  with  a 
covenant  of  warranty,  by  which  the  State  agreed  to 
defend  the  title  to  the  lands  so  purchased  at  any  time  in 
future,  when  called  upon  to  do  so. 

When  the  Revolution  broke  out,  our  State,  in  the 
Constitution  of  1777,  expressly  pledged  itself,  by  Article 
XXXVI.,  that  "  nothing  in  this  Constitution  contained 
shall  be  construed  to  affect  any  grant  made  by  said  king, 
or  his  predecessors,"  and  that  clause  is  in  our  Constitu- 
tion to-day.  It  was,  relying  on  this  pledge,  that  the  real- 
estate  owners  of  this  State  risked  their  lives  and  their 


179 

fortunes  in  favor  of  the  Revolution,  and  enabled  the  State 
of  New  York  to  make  so  noble  a  record. 

As  to  the  upper  part  of  the  city,  where  the  vacant  lots 
he,  which  Mr.  George's  friends  so  particularly  abhor,  the 
title  to  most  of  it  was  in  the  city  up  to  a  comparatively 
recent  date ;  that  formed  part  of  the  common  lands 
of  New  York  and  Harlem.  It  was  first  leased  for 
long  terms  to  individuals  for  rents  payable  in  a 
certain  number  of  bushels  of  wheat,  etc. — the  book 
of  leases  can  be  seen  in  the  Comptroller's  office — and 
then  later  these  rents  were  released  on  the  pay- 
ment of  a  lump  sum  to  the  city.  Other  parts  of  these 
commons  were  advertised  and  sold  at  public  auction, 
some  of  it  quite  recently,  and  the  money  used  to  pay  the 
city  debts,  build  the  acqueduct  and  wharves  and  lay  out 
the  Central  Park.  For  these  lands,  the  city  executed  full 
covenant  and  warranty  deeds,  conveying  and  assuring  to 
the  purchasers  and  to  their  successors  forever,  the  absolute 
ownership  to  these  lands.  How  can  the  people  now 
demand  that  the  acts  of  these  public  officers,  elected  by 
them,  shall  be  nullified,  and  this  land  reclaimed,  or  any 
unfair  burden  placed  upon  it,  violating  thereby  these 
solemn  instruments? 

The  aqueduct,  the  Central  Park,  etc.,  were  built  with 
the  money  of  these  people ;  the  city,  the  public,  has 
received  full  value  ;  it  cannot  recall  these  conveyances  in 
the  face  ol  our  constitutional  prohibitions  against  violating 
the  obligation  of  contracts  or  depriving  individuals  of 
their  private  property  without  compensation. 

The  policy  which  dictated  these  absolute  convey- 
ances was  also  wise.  No  one  who  knows  what  savage 
men  and  nature  the  early  settlers  had  to  contend  with  will 
doubt  that  this  was  necessary.  Do  we  not  know  what 
hard  work  it  took  to  make  this  island  what  it  is  ?  It  was 
once  a  howling  wilderness,  where  people  lived  only  at  the 


■i8o 

risk  of  their  lives ;  all  along  the  Bowery  the  farms  were 
given  up  at  one  time  for  fear  of  the  Indians,  and  later 
with  difficulty  could  men  be  induced  to  live  on  them  ;  you 
can  read  that  in  the  records  at  the  City  Hall.  Time  and 
again  were  these  houses  plundered  by  the  Indians. 

But  now,  when  that  is  all  changed  and  forgotten,  these 
men,  whose  ancestors  remained  comfortably  in  Europe, 
come  here  and  demand  it  all,  in  the  name  of  morality, 
justice,  and  heaven  knows  what,  and  say  that  land  is  as 
free   as   air,   and   sneer   at  these  Dutch  Indian -fighters. 

Moreover,  the  natural  difficulties  which  had  to  be 
overcome  to  make  this  island  what  it  is,  were  great. 

Let  anyone  look  at  the  large  map  of  this  city,  known 
as  General  Viele's  map,  which  shows  the  natural  aspect 
of  this  island,  with  its  rocks,  creeks,  swamps  and  bays, 
and  then  let  him  estimate  what  it  cost  to  make  it  the  firm, 
level  land  that  it  is  now.  Who  paid  for  these  improve- 
ments ?  On  the  lots  themselves  their  owners  paid  for  the 
excavations,  etc.  And  was  it  not,  also,  almost  exclusively 
the  owners  of  the  lots  fronting  on  the  streets  who  paid 
the  heavy  assessments  out  of  their  own  pockets  for 
building  even  our  streets,  which  we  all  use?  and  as  to 
the  share  which  was  raised  by  taxation,  do  we  not  all 
know  how  little  of  that  comes  from  personal  property, 
but  almost  all  from  the  land-owners,  so  that  they  have 
already  practically  paid  for  almost  the  whole  of  the  city's 
public  works. 

Mr.  George  pretends  to  think  that  these  even  streets 
and  level  lots  represent  the  natural  condition  of  this 
island.  He  says,  on  page  8 1  of  his  "Social  Poroblems," 
speaking  of  the  settlement  of  this  city :  "  If  the  Astors 
had  all  remained  in  Germany,  or,  if  there  had  never  been 
any  Astors,  the  land  of  Manhattan  Island  would  have 
been  here  all  the  same."  True,  the  land  would  have  been 
here ;  but,  without  the  men  who  invested  the  fortunes 


I»I 


which  they  brought  with  them,  or  made  in  business,  in 
improving  this  land,  Mr.  George  would  have  found  this 
island  as  undesirable  as  any  part  of  this  rocky  State 
which  is  still  in  a  state  of  nature,  and  where  land  is  to  be 
had  almost  for  the  asking. 

In  fact,  the  right  to  no  species  of  personal  property  has 
more  guarantees  under  our  Constitution  and  laws,  or  is 
entitled,  on  its  own  merits,  to  more  consideration,  than 
the  right  of  property  in  land. 

Considering  all  the  facts,  who  would  risk  his  money  to 
purchase  new  titles,  or  take  long  leases,  from  such  an 
Indian-giver  as  this  State  or  City  of  New  York?  Who 
could  tell  how  soon  another  demagogue  would  arise, 
and  demand  that  the  land  should  be  sold  over  again? 
George  repeats,  most  emphatically,  Rousseau's  argu- 
ments (which  justified  the  anarchy  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion), that  one  generation  cannot  bind  another. 

In  his  "  Irish  Land  Question,"  Mr.  George  says,  on  page 
26:  "It  therefore  follows,  from  the  very  fact  of  their 
existence,  that  the  right  of  each  one  of  the  people  of 
Ireland  to  an  equal  share  in  the  land  of  Ireland,  is  equal 
and  inalienable.  .  .  .  This  right  is  irrefutable  and  inde- 
feasible. .  .  .  No  law,  no  covenant,  no  agreement  can 
bar  it.  One  generation  cannot  stipulate  away  the  rights 
of  another  generation.  ...  If  the  whole  people  of 
Ireland  were  to  unite  in  bargaining  away  their  rights  to 
the  land,  how  could  they  justly  bargain  away  the  right 
of  the  child  who  the  next  moment  is  born  ?" 

But,  how  is  a  generation  to  be  reckoned?  Need  a 
child  wait  until  it  comes  of  age,  if  opportunity  sooner 
offers?  How  about  children  who  are  under  age  at  the 
time  of  this  partition,  and  receive  no  share,  or  perhaps 
not  what  they  consider  an  adequate  share — can  they 
demand  a  resale,  or  reletting,  when  they  come  of  age  ? 

In  fact,  Mr.  George's  scheme  is  nothing  but  repudiation 


1 82 

of  the  State  and  City's  most  solemn  obligations.  It 
would  give  a  shock  to  public  and  to  private  credit,  if  any- 
one supposed  for  a  moment  that  there  was  any  possibility 
of  realizing  such  a  scheme,  compared  to  which  any  tam- 
pering with  the  currency  would  be  child's  play. 

Nothing  is  heard,  when  Mr.  George  goes  into  practical 
politics,  about  any  plan  for  compensation  for  "earned 
increment,"  but  their  only  plan  is  to  tax  the  owners  of 
land,  without  reference  to  the  improvements  thereon. 
This  shows  how  much  Mr.  George  and  his  friends  know 
of  practical  matters.  This  is  only  possible  by  taking  the 
amount  of  money  to  be  raised,  and  dividing  it  by  the 
number  of  lots,  and  raising  the  quotient  from  each  lot. 
For  a  lot  can  be  valued  for  any  purpose,  in  a  city,  only 
with  reference  to  the  improvements  which  are,  or  might 
be  upon  it;  thus,  assessors  estimate  the  value  of  a  vacant 
lot  by  considering  what  sort  of  a  building  could  profit- 
ably be  erected  on  it ;  then  they  estimate  the  rent  of  that 
building ;  then  they  deduct  from  the  rent  the  interest  on 
the  capital  required  for  the  building,  and  other  usual 
expenses  of  owners,  and  then  they  estimate  upon  how 
large  a  capital  the  remainder  of  the  rent  represents  the 
interest,  and  that  sum  is  taken  as  the  value  of  the  lot.  A 
city  lot  has  no  value,  except  with  reference  to  its  actual 
or  possible  improvements,  unless  it  be  to  pasture  goats. 
If  a  building  is  already  on  the  lot,  and  the  assessors  are 
told  by  Mr.  George's  party  to  value  it  without  reference 
to  the  building,  they  can  do  so  only  by  considering  the 
value  of  some  imaginary  building  on  the  lot;  that  consti- 
tutes the  selling  value  of  a  lot. 

The  only  approach  to  a  practical  plan  of  the  "  Progres- 
sive Democracy"  is,  therefore,  simply  silly  and  impossi- 
ble, and  the  only  practical  effect  would  be  to  tax  Vander- 
bilt's  palace  no  more  than  a  row  of  houses  on  Varick 
street,  or  a  cabbage-garden  in  the  Twenty-fourth  Ward. 


1*3 

But,  supposing  that  this  scheme  could,  in  some  way,  be 
carried  out,  so  as  to  compel  all  owners  to  build  on  their 
vacant  lands  at  once,  what  would  be  the  result?  What 
land  is  there  now  which  is  not  built  upon?  It  is  land 
which  is  so  situated  that  the  owners  believe  that  in  future 
there  will  be  greater  need  for  it  by  the  public  for  other 
purposes  than  those  for  which  the  people  would  now  use 
it,  and  that  the  expense  of  preparing  it  for  this  temporary 
use  would  exceed  the  returns.  If  an  owner  thinks  that 
his  lot  will  soon  be  in  demand,  as  a  factory  or  warehouse, 
he  will  not  put  up  a  tenement  house  on  it,  because, 
although  he  might  raise  the  necessary  money  by  a  mort- 
gage, yet,  that  debt  would  prevent  him  subsequently 
raising  the  amount  necessary  to  tear  down  the  tenement 
house  and  build  the  factory,  when  the  latter  became  more 
important  for  the  wants  of  the  people.  The  judgment 
of  real-estate  owners  on  these  points  can  generally  be 
trusted  ;  they  have  every  interest  in  getting  an  income 
from  their  land ;  if  it  lies  in  a  good  situation,  and  is  not 
built  upon,  the  owner  will  be  continually  called  upon  by 
agents,  suggesting  various  purposes  to  which  it  could  be 
put.  To  suppose  that  our  public  salaried  officials  would 
exhibit  an  equal  zeal  or  judgment  in  these  matters,  is 
absurd. 

If  Mr.  George  and  his  friends  are  so  improvident  as 
not  to  see  that  the  only  practical  measures  which  they 
propose  will  inevitably  fail  to  carry  out  their  schemes 
for  the  present,  need  we  wonder  that  they  are  unable  to 
look  far  enough  into  the  past  and  future,  and,  conse- 
quently, fail  to  appreciate  the  disastrous  consequences 
which  their  theories  would  have,  if  put  into  practice, 
upon  the  future  material  and  moral  welfare  of  our  coun- 
try, by  destroying  all  the  humanizing  influences  which 
cluster  around  the  ownership  of  a  home,  by  terminating 
the  inducements  which  are  necessary,  even  now,  to  lead 


1 84 

men  to  make  the  great' sacrifices  necessary  to  make  hab- 
itable a  new  country  in  the  Great  West,  or  to  extend  our 
Eastern  cities,  and  finally,  by  teaching  men  to  violate,  for 
the  sake  of  present  material  comfort,  the  most  solemn 
obligations,  and  to  disregard  the  commandments,  "  Thou 
shalt  not  covet,"  and  "  Thou  shalt  not  steal  ?  " 


i85 


A  WORKINGMAN'S  ANSWER. 


ON  Saturday  I  received  a  note  from  the  gentleman  v»/ho 
at  our  meeting  on  last  Monday  most  zealously  sus- 
tained Mr.  George's  theories,  in  which  he  stated  that  I 
had  at  that  time  not  represented  the  workingmen's  side  of 
the  question,  and  that  consequently  my  argument  was  un- 
democratic. I  considered  that  I  had  answered  Mr.  George 
when  I  had  shown  that  his  proposal  was  unjust. 

However,  without  admitting  that  the  Democratic  party  is 
exclusively  the  party  of  the  workingmen,  I  intend  this  even- 
mg  to  consider  Mr.  George's  candidacy  from  the  stand-point 
of  a  workingman,  and  to  ascertain  for  what  reasons  they 
ought  to  support  him. — I  will  assume  that  the  justice  of  his 
propositions  is  proven,  and  that  the  only  question  is  one  of 
expediency,  namely,  what  the  workingmen  would  gain  if  his 
theories  as  announced  in  his  platform  were  put  into  practice. 

The  best  expression  of  the  present  wishes  of  the  working- 
men  that  I  know  of,  is  to  be  found  in  the  constitutions  of 
the  various  trades  unions.  One  of  the  most  prominent 
unions  is  Typographical  Union  No.  6;  §  3  of  its  Constitution 
reads  :  M  The  objects  of  this  union  shall  be  the  maintenance 
of  a  fair  rate  of  wages,  the  encouragement  of  good  working- 
men,  and  the  employment  of  every  means  which  may  tend 
to  the  elevation  of  printers  in  social  life."  The  Constitution 
of  the  Cigar  Makers  Union  begins  :  "  Whereas  it  is  the  duty 
of  every  worker  to  unite  with  his  fellow  worker  to  secure  a 
fair  compensation  for  his  labor  ;  to  elevate  the  condition  of 


1 86 

the  lowest  paid  worker  to  the  standard  of  the  highest  ;  to 
provide  for  the  sick  members  and  bury  the  dead." 

The  Furniture  Workers  Union  has  the  following  objects  : 

a)  The  maintenance  and  increase  of  wages,  b)  The 
reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor.  c)  The  assistance 
during  strikes  and  lockouts,  dl  The  assistance  while 
unemployed,  e)  The  assistance  during  sickness,  f) 
The  assistance  in  case  of  death,  g)  The  assistance  in 
case  of  loss  of  tools,  h)  The  rendering  of  legal 
assistance  in  claims  against  employers,  i)  The  in- 
struction by  lectures. 

The  Cigar  Makers  International  Union  of  America  is 
formed  to  improve  themselves  :  "  By  prevailing  upon  the 
Legislature  to  secure  first  the  prohibition  of  child  labor 
under  14  years  of  age  ;  the  establishment  of  a  normal  day's 
labor  to  consist  of  not  more  than  8  hours  per  day  for  all 
classes  ;  the  abolition  of  the  truck  system,  tenement  house 
cigar  manufacture,  and  the  system  of  letting  out  by  contract 
the  convict  labor  in  prisons  and  reformatory  institutions  ; 
the  legalization  of  trade  unions  and  the  establishment  of 
bureaus  of  labor  statistics." 

To  these  objects  in  the  main,  no  fair-minded  citizen  can 
object  ;  let  us  see  what  Mr.  George  will  do  towards  their 
realization. 

The  practical  change  proposed  in  his  platform  is  to  tax 
real  estate  without  reference  to  the  improvements,  so  that 
no  one  could  afford  to  hold  unimproved  land  but  would  be 
compelled  to  build  immediately.  Without  stopping  now  to 
consider  the  practicability  of  this  scheme,  let  us  assume  that 
it  has  been  done,  and  that  a  large  number  of  houses  suited 
for  dwellings  and  manufactures  and  offices  have  been  built, 
so  as  to  reduce  rents  throughout  the  city  very  materially, 
or  even  to  a  mere  nominal  sum.  What  advantage  would 
that  be  to  the  workingmen  ? 


18/ 

I  am  an  employee  of  a  large  corporation  ;  if  the  rent  of 
its  various  offices  were  reduced  or  entirely  abolished,  my 
pay  would  in  no  way  be  increased, — very  possibly  I  might 
never  hear  of  it  ;  I  believe  the  men  employed  in  any 
business  in  this  city  would  say  the  same  thing. 

But  if  the  rent  of  my  apartment  were  reduced  very  material- 
ly, it  would  benefit  me,  if  it  was  done  in  my  case  alone;  but  if 
it  were  done  throughout  the  city,  very  soon  my  employers 
would  say:  "We  hear  you  no  longer  pay  rent;  that  is 
probably  so  much  of  your  salary  ;  we  intend  to  reduce  your 
salary  that  much,  and  if  you  are  not  satisfied,  we  can  now 
get  a  man  of  equal  ability  for  that  pay,as  other  men  in  your 
branch  have  also  to  pay  no  rents."  Even  if  all  employers 
did  not  do  this  at  once,  some  would  certainly  begin  it,  and 
then  the  others  would  be  forced  to  follow  suit,  or  be  under- 
sold or  driven  out  of  the  business.  I  believe  the  men  em- 
ployed in  any  trade  or  manufacture  in  this  city  would  say 
that  this  would  surely  happen.  Morover,  where  would  the 
money  come  from  with  which  these  houses  are  to  be  built  ? 
Would  it  not  be  taken  out  of  the  trades  and  manufactures, 
where  it  is  now  invested,  because  it  receives  a  larger  return, 
and  would  not  all  these  other  trades  and  manufactures,  and 
the  men  employed  therein  suffer  ? 

Or  if  the  large  amount  of  money  which  it  is  expected  will 
be  immediately  raised  by  taxation  were  wisely  expended  for 
beneficent  public  purposes,  and  heat  and  light  were  fur- 
nished without  charge  to  all  citizens,  would  not  employees 
soon  hear  similar  remarks  about  the  saving  which  they  were 
now  making  in  the  matter  of  light  and  fuel,  and  would  not 
one  employer  after  the  other  make  a  consequent  reduc- 
tion in  wages,  as  stated  above  in  the  case  if  rents  were 
reduced  ? 

Would  the  workingmen  not  be  in  exactly  the  position  in 
which  they  are  to-day  ?  Would  not  this  money  expected 
for    these   public   benefits   also   attract   workingmen   from 


188 

other  cities,  and  so  leave  this  same  old  contest  between 
labor  and  capital?  Would  there  not  be  the  same  necessity 
for  the  Declaration  of  the  Principles  of  the  Knights  of  La- 
bor of  North  America,  beginning  :  ''The  alarming  develop- 
ment and  aggression  of  aggregated  wealth,  which,  unless 
checked,  will  inevitably  lead  to  the  pauperization  and  hope- 
less degradation  of  the  toiling  masses,  render  it  imperative, 
if  we  desire  to  enjoy  the  blessings  of  life,  that  a  check 
should  be  placed  upon  its  power  and  upon  unjust  accumula- 
tion, and  a  system  adopted  which  will  secure  to  the  laborer 
the  fruits  of  his  toil  "  ? 

Would  not  the  fight  against  over-work,  child-labor,  the 
truck-system,  and  all  the  acknowledged  evils  of  the  laissez- 
faire  system  have  to  be  begun  again,  just  where  they  are 
now  ? 

I  submit  therefore  that  this  movement,  as  defined  in  their 
platform,  can  not  accomplish  the  ends  which  workingmen 
desire  and  which  would  really  benefit  them;  the  amount  of 
their  pay  would  continue  to  be  regulated  by  the  most  un- 
scrupulous and  hard-hearted  man  among  the  class  of  their 
employers. 

But  I  believe  that  this  movement  will  do  more  than  this; 
I  believe  that  it  will  very  seriously  injure  the  real  interests 
of  the  workingmen  and  indefinitely  postpone  the  realization 
of  all  practical  plans  for  the  improvement  of  their  condi- 
tion. In  the  first  place,  they  are  wasting  their  energies  in 
electing  an  administrative  officer,  instead  of  trying  to  secure 
representatives  in  the  legislature,  who  would  secure  the 
changes  on  our  statute  book,  necessitated  by  our  transition 
from  a  purely  agricultural  state  to  one  having  large  manu- 
facturing interests.  No  one  knows  what  ought  to  be  pro- 
posed in  this  matter  so  well  as  the  workingmen  themselves 
and  unless  they  send  representatives,  their  just  demands 
will  not  be  attended  to.  The  same  thing  applies  to  our 
local  legislature,  the   Board  of  Aldermen;  the  workingmen 


1 89 

have  announced  their  intention  of  not  paying  attention  to 
these  offices,  but  of  concentrating  their  efforts  on  the 
Mayor.  It  is  already  evident  that  both  Aldermen  and  As- 
semblymen are  to  be  of  the  same  class  as  in  former  years; 
that  they  will  be  the  tools  of  politicians  and  corporations, 
as  in  former  years  ;  and  that  the  workingmen  will  get  as 
much  benefit,  as  they  have  got  in  former  years.  But  this  is 
not  all  the  mischief :  the  demands  which  the  workingmen 
make  for  shorter  hours,  etc.,  can  be  conceded  to  them  only 
at  a  certain  loss  and  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  other  classes  of 
the  community.  Hitherto  their  demands  have  met  generally 
with  fair  popular  support;  for  instance  the  early  closing 
movement.  But  let  the  workingmen  adhere  to  Mr.  George's 
theories  and  they  will  antagonize  a  very  large  class  of  the 
people  of  this  State,  and  drive  them  to  unite  with  the  em- 
ployers, so  that  the  demands  of  the  workingmen  will  meet 
with  a  very  different  reception,  after  a  few  campaigns  such 
as  this  promises  to  be. 

That  Mr.  George's  theories  are  not  actually  going  to  be 
put  into  practice,  every  practical  man  knows;  "  the  states- 
manship of  the  plough,"  which,  as  Governor  Seymour  said, 
guides  this  country,  forbids  it  ;  the  whole  movement  is  too 
much  against  the  American  traditions;  the  Churches  will 
all  be  against  it;  the  influence  which  a  combination  of  em- 
ployers and  real  estate  owners  would  bring  to  bear,  if  once 
aroused,  with  all  their  friends,  would  simply  overwhelm  the 
trades-unions.  Moreover,  Mr.  George's  theories,  as  soon 
as  they  are  brought  to  light  and  their  practical  application 
considered,  will  cause  so  many  new  theorists  to  spring  up 
with  equally  visionary  plans,  who  will  oppose  each  other, 
so  that  all  will  cease  to  have  attractions  for  any  large  num- 
ber of  citizens  sufficiently  strong  to  hold  them  together. 

I  do  not  therefore  think  that,  admitting  that  the  argu- 
ment which  I  first  advanced  this  evening  were  false,  and 
that  the  workingmen  could  realize  benefits  from  this  plan, 


190 

that  there  is  the  remotest  prospect  of  its  being  put  into 
operation.  But  I  do  think  that  it  will  immediately  excite 
hostility  among  a  very  large  and  important  class  and  that 
the  real  reforms  needed  by  workingmen  will  thereby  be  de- 
layed. 

The  experience  of  Europe  during  the  last  century  shows 
the  certain  futility  of  this  movement.  The  first  man  to  un- 
dertake to  put  these  theories  into  practice  was  Babceuf,  at 
the  close  of  the  first  French  Revolution  ;  Proudhon  was  the 
first  to  undertake  to  justify  it,  and  Considerant  (in  1837),  a 
pupil  of  Fourier,  modified  the  doctrine  so  that  it  should  only 
apply  to  land,  and  not  to  personal  property. 

-How  closely  Mr.  George  has  followed  these  authors  a 
few  citations,  showing  the  main  points  of  their  theories,  will 
demonstrate. 

To  begin  with  the  title  page  of  Mr.  George's  first  book, 
which  reads  :  "  Progress  and  Poverty  :  an  Inquiry  into  the 
cause  of  industrial  depressions,  and  of  increase  of  want  with 
increase  of  wealth" ;  the  article  cited  in  note  A,  of  Mr.  Con- 
siderant's  Socialism  (published  in  1849)  is  entitled:  "Of 
the  causes  of  the  increase  of  misery  in  proportion  to  the  de- 
velopment of  riches." — This  article  states  the  proposition  as 
follows  :  "  If  there  is  a  social  phenomenon  worthy  of  at- 
tention, it  is  certainly  that  of  the  increase  of  misery  among 
the  laboring  classes  in  proportion  to  the  progress  of  general 
wealth,  and  that  other  phenomenon  not  less  extraordinary 
and  always  accompanying  the  latter,  of  this  misery  existing 
most  intensely  among  the  most  industrious  and  free  nations, 
like  England,  France  etc." 

Mr.  George  says  in  his  Progress  and  Poverty,  p.  7  :  "It 
is  at  last  becoming  evident  that  the  enormous  increase  in 
productive  power  has  no  tendency  to  extirpate  poverty. 
It  is  in  the  older  and  richer  sections  of  the  Union  that  pau- 
perism and  distress  among  the  working  classes  are  becoming 
most  painfully  apparent."     (p.  9.) 


igi 

Mr.  Considerant  impressively  says  :  "  The  Sphinx  is  the 
people  ;  the  terrible  enigma  is  the  problem  of  the  times." 
Mr.  George  says  on  yage  9 :  "It  is  the  riddle  which  the 
Sphinx  of  fate  puts  to  our  civilization,  and  which  not  to 
answer  is  to  be  destroyed." 

In  Considerant's  other  work,  entitled  "  Destinee  Sociale" 
(1837)  he  says  on  page  250 :  "It  is  then  proved  by  facts 
that  the  proletariat  and  pauperism  increase  in  epochs  of  civi- 
lization with  population  and  more  rapidly  than  it,  and  as 
the  direct  cause  of  the  growing  progress  of  industry." — He 
repeats  the  same  statement  in  various  forms,  as  often  as 
Mr.  George  does. — We  see  therefore  that  the  problem  which 
these  two  writers  propose,  is  the  same. 

As  to  the  remedy,  they  also  agree  and  Mr.  Considerant 
says,  in  his  work  of  1837  :  "  The  whole  land  must  be  culti- 
vated as  the  land  of  one  man."  In  the  work  of  Mr.  Con- 
siderant entitled  "Socialism"  he  says  on  page  107  ;  "  Rent 
of  land  is  a  feudal  privilege  which  ought  to  go  to  rejoin  its 
elder  brethren  in  the  great  ditch  of  justice  of  the  Nations- 

and  Revolutions There  are  among  Socialists  those  who 

would  derange  nothing  in  society  ;    who  do  not  call  us  to- 
live  in  common,  to  abandon  that  which  we  have,  to  change 
our  manner  of  life   for   something   we  know  not  what   .  . 
Suppose  that  these  socialists  should  come  to  power  and  this- 
should  be  then  law." 

Mr.  George  says  on  page  364  of  Progress  and  Poverty  : 
"  It  is  not  necessary  to  confiscate  land  ;  it  is  only  necessary 
to  confiscate  rent." 

Mr.  Considerant  does  not  enter  to  any  extent  into  an 
attempt  to  show  the  justice  of  this  appropriation  of  land  by 
the  public  ;  so  Mr.  George  has  to  take  up  Proudhon,  for 
this  part  of  the  argument,  and  repeats  in  various  forms  the 
latters  three  arguments. 

Firstly  Mr.  Proudhon  says  in  his  book  on  Property  (I  cite 
from  the  translation  published  by  Tucker,  Princeton,  Mass., 


192 

1876)  :  "  How  can  the  supplies  of  nature,  the  wealth  crea- 
ted by  Providence,  become  private  property  ?  We  want 
to  know  by  what  right  man  has  appropriated  wealth  which 
he  did  not  create,  and  which  nature  gave  to  him  gratuitously? 
Who  made  the  land  ?  God.  Then  proprietor,  retire."  (p.  89). 
Mr.  George  says  in  Social  Problems  (p.  278)  :  "  What  more 
preposterous  than  the  treatment  of  land  as  individual 
property  ...      It  is  the  creation  of  God." 

Proudhon's  second  point  is  that  universal  consent  gives  no 
justification  to  property,  he  says  (p.  311  in  Theorie  de  l'lm- 
port)  :  "  The  earth  furnishes  to  man  the  material,  tools 
and  force. — Labor  puts  force  in  motion. — Labor  alone  is  pro- 
ductive. Now  to  recognize  the  right  of  territorial  property 
is  to  give  up  labor,  since  it  is  to  relinguish  the  means  of 
labor."  Mr.  George  says  in  the  chapter  on  "  Injustice  of  Pri- 
vate Property  in  Land,"  in  Progress  and  Poverty  :  "  land  on 
which  and  from  which  all  must  live.  The  recognition  of 
private  individual  proprietorship  of  land  is  the  denial  of  the 
natural  rights  of  other  individuals.  For  as  labor  can  not 
produce  without  the  use  of  land,  the  denial  of  the  equal 
right  to  the  use  of  land  is  necessarily  the  denial  of  the  right 
of  labor  to  its  produce." 

Proudhon's  third  argument  is  that  "  proscription  (or  long 
possession)  gives  no  title  to  property  ;  it  is  not  based  on  a 
just  title  ;  past  error  is  not  binding  on  the  future,"  p.  89. 

Mr.  George  says  on  307  of  Progress  and  Poverty  ;  "Con- 
sider for  a  moment  the  utter  absurdity  of  the  titles,  by 
which  we  permit  it  to  be  passed  from  John  Doe  to  Richard 
Roe  . .  .  Everywhere  not  to  a  right  which  obliges,  but  to  a 
force  which  compels,  and  when  a  title  rests  but  on  force,  no 
complaint  can  be  made  when  force  annuls  it." 

Proudhon's  conclusion  is  :  "  The  earth  cannot  be  appro- 
priated," (p.  73  of  French  edition).  —  Mr.  George  says  : 
04  There  is  on  earth  no  power  which  can  rightfully  make  a 
grant  of  exclusive  ownership  of  land,"  (p.  304  of  Progress 
and  Poverty). 


ip3 

Proudhon  then  abuses  owners,  for  example,  citing  a  verse 
which  shows  how  first  comes  the  contractors  share,  then 
the  laborers,  then  the  capitalists  and  then  :  "I  am  the 
proprietor.  I  take  the  whole,"  (p.  189). — Mr.  George  says  in 
Protection  and  Free  Trade:  "And  the  robber  that  takes 
all  that  is  left  is  private  property  in  land,"  (p.  285). — The 
number  of  these  comparisons  might  be  increased  very 
largely.  Finally,  in  his  picture  of  the  results,  Mr.  George 
returns  to  Considerant,  and  insists  with  him  upon  the  great 
advantages  to  individuals  arising  from  this  cooperation  and 
common  ownership  of  all  living  in  the  commune,  and  as  the 
picture  of  a  Utopia  one  is  as  beautiful  as  the  other.  We  see 
therefore  that  as  to  his  title,  problem,  its  solution,  the 
remedy  of  the  evil  and  the  result  Mr.  George  has  followed 
Considerant,  and  as  to  the  justification  of  the  remedy 
Proudhon. — Unfortunately  Proudhon  proves  too  much  ;  for 
as  I  showed  in  my  former  paper,  if  Mr.  George  has  demon- 
strated that  there  should  be  no  private  property  in  land, 
he  has  also  demonstrated  this  as  to  personal  property. — 
Proudhon  proclaimed  this,  and  it  was  the  chief  difference 
between  him  and  Considerant. 

If  we  delay  for  a  moment  to  call  in  mind  the  resemblances 
which  I  have  pointed  out  to  Proudhon  and  Considerant, — 
and  they  can  be  greatly  increased  if  any  one  will  take  the 
trouble  so  to  do,  by  comparing  these  books  in  the  Astor 
Library, — can  we  accept  the  generally  received  theory  as 
to  George's  intellectual  capacity  or  of  his  extraordinary 
devotion  to  humanity,  or  even  of  his  phenomenal  honesty  ? 
What  must  we  think  of  those  men  who  have  compared  his 
doctrines  to  those  of  Christ  ?  Is  it  not  an  insult  to  our  in- 
telligence to  dish  up  these  warmed-up  meats  from  which 
Europe  has  long  ago  turned  away  in  disgust,  as  the  heaven- 
born  manna  which  alone  can  preserve  the  New  World  ?  If 
the  ghosts  of  Messieurs  Proudhon  and  Considerant  were 
allowed  to  sit  on   the  stage  at  one  of  Mr.  George's  meet- 


194 

ings,  would  not  his  remarks  be  often  interrupted  by  their 
indignant  chestnut-bells  ? 

But  to  resume:  What  success  had  this  theory  in  France  ? 
Babceuf  s  rude  announcement  of  it  was  the  closing  episode 
of  the  first  French  Revolution  and  made  Napoleon  I.  pos- 
sible ;  the  fear  of  it  sustained  the  Restoration  and  the  July 
Monarchy  ;  Proudhon  and  Considerant  were  in  the  Assem- 
bled of  the  1848  Republic,  and  Considerant  then  published 
his  socialism  above  cited,  and  announced  that  in  three  years 
the  social-democratic  republic  would  be  in  force;  in  far 
less  time  the  second  Empire  was  established,  as  necessary 
for  the  preservation  of  order. 

Since  then,  these  theories  have  in  Europe  passed  from 
the  stage  of  practical  politics  and  are  only  referred  to  by 
historians  as  showing  the  steps  by  which  modern  socialism, 
as  advocated  by  Karl  Marx  and  Lasalle  arose.  It  is  the 
oblivion  to  which  these  older  radical  thorists  have  been 
consigned  by  the  modern  communists  themselves,  which 
induced  the  French  bourgeoisie  to  support  the  present 
Republic.  If  therefore  this  seed  of  dragons'  teeth  could  not 
sprout  in  France  and  has  now  rotted  in  the  ground,  we 
need  not  fear  that  it  will  bear  fruit  in  this  much  more 
uncongenial  clime.  Nor  need  we  fear  that  the  people  will 
accept  a  despotism  in  order  to  escape  it;  the  true  propor- 
tions of  this  movement  will  be  known  soon  enough.  But 
we  must  fear  that  this  movement  will  excite  hostility 
against  the  workingmen  among  a  large  class  of  our  well- 
to-do  population,  especially  in  our  cities,  and  also  that  it 
will  induce  this  class  to  submit  with  excessive  patience  to 
the  increasing  growth  of  the  power  of  the  monopolists  and 
politicians,  for  fear  that  any  change  in  our  old-fashioned 
countrified  government  might  be  for  the  worse. 

But  this  revival  of  worn-out  Old-World  theories  is  also 
injurious  to  the  workingmen,  in  turning  them  irom  the  pur- 
suit of  the  theories  of  Lasalle  and   Karl   Marx,  many  of 


195 

which,  all  must  recognize,  have  a  certain  amount  of  justice. 
Those  writers  recognize  the  necessity  of  a  historical  devel- 
opment and  aim  at  improving  the  workingmen's  condition 
by  introducing  factory  regulations,  shorter  hours,  etc.,  as 
our  trades-unions'  circulars  above  cited  demanded.  To 
turn  back  the  hands  of  the  clock  for  forty  years  and  take  up 
these  impracticable  chimeras,  means  an  injury  to  the  real 
welfare  of  the  workingmen,  and  of  our  whole  people,  which 
it  is  difficult  to  under-estimate. 

The  dread  which  those  theories  excited  in  France,  so  as 
to  drive  men  to  accept  the  First  and  Second  Empire,  may 
also  be  a  warning  to  us  of  the  effect  which  even  a  moderate 
success  of  this  movement  at  the  polls,  would  have  upon 
capital  invested  in  this  City  and  State.  I  fear  that  a  vote 
of  even  20,000  will  be  sufficient  to  give  a  check  to  our  indus- 
tries, which  are  just  now  reviving  under  the  influence  of  gen- 
eral prosperity;  failing  trade  and  closing  factories  will  be  in 
proportion  to  the  success  of  this  movement,  and  the  only 
real  change  in  the  condition  of  the  working  men. 

There  is  another  benefit  which  we  derive  from  tracing 
Mr.  George's  ideas  to  their  source  :  When  we  see  how 
many  of  his  theories  he  has  evidently  taken  from  Considerant, 
who  advocated  the  co-operative  communes  with  all  land  in 
common,  we  are  able  to  understand  many  suggestions  of 
Mr.  George,  as  being  part  of  a  more  or  less  definite  intention 
of  realizing  some  such  scheme,  and  which  ideas  appear  dis- 
connected and  unintelligible,  if  we  consider  solely  his  in- 
tentions of  abolishing  rent  as  his  one  object,  with  which  he 
would  be  satisfied. 

Thus,  I  was  surprised  to  find  Mr.  George  advocating  the 
increase  of  the  power  of  our  Board  of  Aldermen.  He  says, 
in  the  interview  published  in  the  Sun  of  October  3  :  "New 
York  (city)  should  have  one  legislative  body  that  in  local 
affairs  would  have  sovereign  power."  There  was  no  demand 
for  this  in  the  platform,  nor  so  far  as  I  know  have  the  work- 


196 

ingmen  demanded  it  ;  the  whole  tendency  of  legislation  has 
been  to  deprive  this  Board  of  power  ;  Mr.  George  does  not 
suggest  any  maaner  of  improving  its  character, — but  only 
wants  it  to  have  "  sovereign  power." — Without  stopping  to 
dwell  on  the  fact  that  if  Mr.  George  were  a  real  Democrat 
he  would  not  admit  that  any  government  was  "  sovereign  " 
over  the  people,  I  think  the  explanation  for  this  strange 
demand  is  that  it  is  an  essential  part  of  Considerant's  theory 
of  the  co-operative  commune.  This  absolute  local  govern- 
ment is  necessary  for  any  scheme  of  communism;  if  all  are  to 
enjoy  equally,  all  must  work  equally,  and  this  requires  strict 
supervision.  It  was  the  demand  of  the  Paris  communists;  the 
beautiful  Utopia  that  makes  Mr.  George's  book  so  attractive 
cannot  be  realized  without  it.  No  matter  how  much  he  may 
strive  to  keep  it  in  the  back-ground,  he  cannot  hide  the  cloven 
hoof.  Thus  he  says  on  page  296  of  Social  Questions,  that 
"  society  may  pass  into  a  co-operative  association,"  and  on 
page  410  of  Progress  and  Poverty:  "Government  would 
change  its  character,  and  would  become  the  administration 
of  a  great  co-operative  society.  It  would  become  merely 
the  agency  by  which  the  common  property  was  administered 
for  the  common  benefit."  This  is  only  Considerant's  com- 
munal government  ;  how  much  official  machinery  would  be 
necessary  in  New  York  to  realize  Mr.  George's  plans,  as  set 
out  for  example,  on  page  410  of  Progress  and  Poverty: 
"This  revenue  arising  from  the  common  property  could  be 
applied  to  common  benefit,  as  were  the  revenues  of  Sparta. 
We  might  not  establish  public  tables — they  would  become 
unnecessary  ;  but  we  could  establish  public  baths,  museums, 
libraries,  gardens,  lecture  rooms,  music  and  dancing  halls, 
theatres,  universities,  technical  schools,  shooting  galleries, 
play-grounds,  gymnasiums,  etc."  Society  attempts  some  of 
these  things  now  ;  how  does  it  realize  them  ?  Had  we  not 
better  get  our  present  undertakings  in  good  working  order, 
before  starting  out  on  such  unlimited  extensions  of  the 
system  ? 


i97 

Moreover,  this  demand  for  one  sovereign  local  govern- 
ment, over  the  million  and  a  half  of  people  of  this  city, 
and  which  is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  realization  of 
half  of  Mr.  George's  schemes,  presents  the  chief  objection  to 
all  that  is  hopeful  in  the  modern  labor  movement.  That 
movement  recognizes  the  necessity  of  trades  unions,  that 
they  have  come  to  stay,  that  in  their  proyer  development 
and  participation  in  public  affairs  lies  great  promise  for  the 
welfare  not  only  of  the  workingmen,  but  of  the  State;  and 
that  these  trade  organizations  should  be  entrusted  with 
powers  and  duties  and  form  part  of  our  body  politic,  as 
the  geographical  divisions  called  States  and  Counties 
made  up  the  Union  when  we  were  purely  an  agricultural 
community. 

Now  these  trades  unions  have  as  much  need  for  the  demo- 
cratic doctrine  of  wheels  within  wheels,  and  as  little  need 
for  a  sovereign  local  government  over  them,  as  the  States 
have  for  a  sovereign  and  therefore  unlimited  national  gov- 
ernment (see  Mr.  Bancroft's  Plea  for  the  Constitution,*  and 
this  radical  difference  between  trades  unionists  and  socialists 
has  long  been  instinctively  recognized  in  labor  circles,  and 
the  contest  between  the  two  has  been  for  years  going  on 
with  varying  success  ;  see  the  following  citation  on 
page  602  of  the  Third  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau 
of  Labor  Statistics  of  New  York:  "To  confound  the 
trade  union  movement  with  the  political  movement  of 
the  Socialists  is  a  thorough  mistake,  the  difference  being 
that  while  the  trades  unions  are  organized  only  for 
the  purpose  of  protection  for  their  labor,  adapting  them- 
selves at  all  times  to  circumstances  and  conditions  as  well 
as  to  the  surroundings,  and  being  largely  influenced  thereby, 
the  socialistic  movement  aims  at  the  entire  reconstruction 
of  society  upon  their   principles,  is   satisfied  with  nothing 


See  also  :   "  Tendencies  of  the  Republican  Party,"  published  by  this  Club 


198 

less,  ignores  all  possible  reasonable  objections,  and  dis- 
parages trade  organizations,  recognizing  them  only  as  ob- 
stacles in  their  path  of  progress." 

Now,  it  is  plain  that  Mr.  George  with  his  demand  for  a 
sovereign,  i.  e.  unlimited  local  government  belongs  to  the 
communist-socialistic  school,  —  as  every  faithful  desciple 
of  Proudhon  and  Considerant  should  ;  and  it  is  also  for  this 
reason  that  I  believe  that  workingmen,  who  believe  in 
trades  unions,  should  oppose  Mr.  George. 

Trades  unions  have  no  place  in  Mr.  George's  schemes  ; 
according  to  the  index,  they  are  not  mentioned  in  Progress 
and  Poverty ;  in  Protection  and  Free  Trade  they  are  re- 
ferred to  three  times, — two  of  which  are  bare  mentions,  and 
the  third  (on  pages  322  and  323)  is  as  follows  :  "  Something 
can  be  done  in  this  way  for  those  within  such  organizations; 
but  it  is  after  all  very  little This,  those  who  are  in- 
clined to  put  faith  in  the  power  of  trades-unionism  are  be- 
ginning to  see,  aud  the  logic  of  events  must  more  and  more 
lead  them  to  see." — Mr.  George  therefore  has  no  faith  in 
trades-unions. — Are  the  skilled  workingmen  then  going  to 
allow  their  organizations  to  be  used  for  this  man's  election  ? 
Have  they  not  had  enough  experience  with  theorists,  politi- 
cians aud  demagogues  (often  in  the  pay  of  employers)  who 
did  not  believe  in  their  unions  ?  Among  his  supporters  are 
found  men  whose  interests  are  identified  with  bodies  which 
have  always  opposed  trades  unions.  A  vote  for  Henry  George 
is  a  vote  against  the  Trades  Unions. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  workingmen,  as  members  of 
their  trades-unions,  would  make  a  demand  on  the  Democra- 
tic Party  for  recognition  of  their  representatives  in  the 
party's  councils,  they  would  before  long,  I  am  convinced, 
receive  due  attention,  and  be  able  tew  have  an  influence 
on  legislation  and  choice  of  officers  proportionate  to  the 
importance  of  their  organizations.  The  demands  of  these 
unions    for   recognition    by   the    State,    and    for  a   certain 


199 

amount  of  autonomy  in  their  internal  affairs,  is  justified  by- 
all  the  Democratic  Fathers  in  their  advocacy  of  State 
Rights.  * 

Or  else  the  workingmen  could  in  local  matters  go  into 
politics  by  themselves  and  seek  to  gain  the  practical  ob- 
jects which  their  constitutions  have  so  long  demanded;  for 
this  they  should  elect  members  of  the  Legislature,  instead 
of  having  their  Central  Committee,  as  it  has  to-day  done, 
prohibit  the  organizations  to  indorse  or  put  forward  candi- 
dates. There  is  where  the  source  of  evil  lies;  in  the  reck- 
less bad  laws  which  the  Legislatures  pass.  But  if  the  work- 
ingmen say  they  cannot  elect  Assemblymen,  because  they 
are  divided  into  so  many  districts  that  their  strength  is 
wasted,  then  they  should  strive  to  abolish  this  unnatural 
division  into  geographical  election  districts.  But  it  is  worse 
than  useless  for  workingmen  to  try  to  put  these  wild  theorists 
who  can  only  alarm  men  of  property  into  administrative 
offices.* 

It  is  the  old  story  of  that  which  happened  in  Rome, 
where  the  wild  pleas  for  the  division  of  land  by  the  Gracchi 
drove  the  Romans  to  accept  a  plutocracy  and  finally  the 
Caesars.  As  above  mentioned,  it  was  the  similar  demand 
for  common  land,  which  led  to  the  overthrow  of  the  first 
and  second  French  Republics.  Can  we  not  profit  by  their 
experience  ? 

Can  we  not  do  these  things  better  in  America  ? 

This,  I  think,  will  be  the  turning  point  in  American  .his- 
tory. No  republic  has  ever  yet  passed  from  the  condition 
of  an  agricultural  community  to  that  of  a  state  with  large 
cities,   without  being  plagued  by  demagogues — especially 


*  Under  the  Consolidation  Act  of  1882  the  men  who  assess  land  for  taxation, 
are  sworn  to  value  improved  and  unimproved  land  equally  at  its  selling  value. 
What  selling  value  has  city  property  if  the  actual  or  possible  improvements  are 
not  considered  ? 


200 

those  who  demanded  a  division  of  land — until  refuge  was 
taken  in  a  depotism. 

If  we  can  introduce  those  trade  organizations  in  a  peace- 
able and  orderly  manner  into  our  body  politic — a  feat  which 
no  state  has  yet  accomplished — and  satisfy  their  just  de- 
mands, I  believe  that  we  would  have  a  state,  which  might 
realize  some  of  Considerant's  beautiful  aspirations,  here  in 
America,  although  his  French  methods  are  impracticable. 
America  must  find  its  own  way.  Let  us  remember  what 
Emerson  said : 

"  We  live  in  a  new  and  exceptional  age.  America  is 
another  name  for  Opportunity.  Our  whole  history  appears 
like  a  last  effort  of  the  Divine  Providence  in  behalf  of  the 
human  race." 


201 


Progress  and  Justice;  or,  The  Work  for 
Federalism. 


Bismarck  is  reported  to  have  said:  "There  was  some 
justification  for  Parisian  communism."  May  it  not  then 
be  worth  while  for  us  to  inquire  whether  there  is  not  some 
grievance,  which  caused  over  sixty  thousand  of  our  fellow 
citizens  at  the  last  election  to  vote  for  the  representative 
of  such  wild  theories  as  those  of  Henry  George,  evidently 
merely  as  an  indignant  protest  against  the  existing  order 
of  things,  in  this  "  land  of  the  free  and  home  of  the  brave  ?  " 

Anyone  who  looks  back  upon  the  last  few  years  and 
sees  how  rapidly  this  discontent  has  spread  and  organized 
for  political  action,  must  realize  that  it  is  not  a  matter 
which  this  generation  can  afford  to  disregard.  Especially 
is  it  incumbent  upon  anyone  who  may  believe  in  the 
principles  set  forth  in  my  "  Trade  Organizations  in 
Politics,"  to  consider  whether  in  the  light  of  recent  oc- 
curences its  theories,  favoring  the  development  of  trade, 
business  and  professional  organizations  must  not  be 
considered  as  dangerous,  at  this  time  and  in  our  country. 

I  believe,  however,  that  if  we  will  patiently  examine 
this  workingmen's  movement,  we  will  find  in  it,  among 
much  that  is  reprehensible,  many  signs  of  promise,  and 
that  we  will  realize  that  the  great  question  is  how  to* 
encourage  the  latter  and  repress  the  former,  and  that  by 
a  courageous  and  charitable  spirit  the  development  of  this 
movement  may  be  so  guided  as  to  produce  the  greatest 


202 

benefits,  not  only  to  the  workingmen,  but  to  society  at 
large. 

In  the  first  place,  no  one  need  assume  that  this  move- 
ment is  to  grow  indefinitely  ;  the  differences  of  interest 
which  exist  between  the  skilled  and  unskilled  workingmen 
are  already  making  themselves  felt  in  the  contests  between 
the  old  trade  unionists  and  the  Knights  of  Labor.  The 
latter  require  a  strong  centralized  organization,  governing 
all  laborers  engaged  in  occupations  requiring  little  or  no 
skill,  so  as  to  keep  the  great  army  of  unskilled  labor  from 
migrating  to  any  section  where  a  strike  may  exist,  and 
taking  up  the  employment  which  the  strikers  have 
dropped;  to  render  a  strike  of  such  laborers  successful,  the 
unemployed  men  of  the  whole  country  must  be  controlled. 
Skilled  workingmen,  on  the  other  hand,  need  fear  only 
the  competition  of  men  who  have  devoted  years  to  pre- 
pare themselves  for  the  trade;  they  therefore  have  but 
little  dread  of  competition  from  the  great  mass  of  day 
laborers.  The  unskilled  workingmen  are  consequently 
called  upon  to  contribute  for  the  success  of  strikes  in  all 
parts  of  the  country,  as  they  can  only  hope  to  improve 
their  own  condition  by  raising  that  of  all  other  unskilled 
laborers.  The  carpenters  or  engineers,  on  the  other  hand, 
while  they  have  a  much  more  direct  interest  in  the 
success  of  a  strike  in  their  own  trade  in  any  part  of  the 
country,  have  but  little  concern  as  to  the  condition  of 
hod  carriers  or  freight  handlers. 

The  disputes  in  the  United  Labor  Party  are  therefore 
unavoidale  and  certain  to  increase,  so  that  there  is  no 
cause  for  excessive  alarm.  Moreover,  as  any  communistic 
movement  nears  apparent  success,  it  is  actuallv  approach- 
ing destruction  ;  for  the  reason  that  then  its  leaders  must 
unfold  their  plans,  how  their  theories  are  to  be  practically 
realized,  and  there  is  none  that  will  obtain  the  approval 
-of  workingmen.     Common  enjoyment  of  the  earth's  prod 


203 

ucts  can  exist  only  with  their  common  production ;  this 
common  production  can  be  made  fair  only  by  the  strictest 
government  supervision,  and  this  is  exactly  what  com- 
munists object  to.  The  International  in  Europe  flour- 
ished there  but  recently;  it  was  so  successful  that  its 
members  at  last  began  discussing  what  they  would  do  when 
Government  was  actually  in  their  hands;  that  discussion 
broke  up  their  organization  and  it  is  now  no  longer 
heard  of. 

The  study  of  history  shows  also  that  attempts  to  intro- 
duce equality  of  property  have  all  failed,  and  anyone  who 
appreciates  the  stability  of  legal  institutions,  and  their 
slow  change  even  among  distantly  related  races  and  in 
different  climes,  will  feel  sure  that  we  are  not  at  the 
utmost  approaching  anything  except  temporary  disorders. 

But  this  danger  is  one  sufficiently  serious  to  demand 
the  most  careful  consideration  of  all  who  feel  an  interest 
in  the  country's  welfare.  Is  it  not  possible  to  discover 
and  remove  the  cause  of  this  discontent,  ere  it  breaks  out 
in  violence?  That  the  condition  of  masses  of  our 
fellow  beings  in  our  great  American  cities  is  most 
wretched  is  undeniable.  Their  condition  can  not  be 
ascertained  by  comparing  their  food  or  wages  with  that 
ot  European  workmen.  Our  climate  is  so  exhilarating 
and  exhausting,  the  cold  and  heat  are  so  extreme,  that  the 
comforts  required  to  make  life  here  endurable  much 
exceed  those  needed  in  Europe.  No  one  acquainted  with 
New  York  City  in  summer  will  deny  that  for  about  three 
months  the  condition  of  operatives,  who  spend  their  days 
in  crowded  factories  and  their  nights  in  tenement  houses, 
is  one  which  entails  long  and  severe  physical  suffering, 
and  which  renders  mental  and  moral  improvement  ex- 
tremely difficult;  in  the  raw  cold  of  our  winter  days  and 
nights,  they  are  again  exposed   to   severe   strains   upon 


204 

their  constitutions,  by  which  many  sicken  or  have  their 
lives  shortened. 

The  progress  of  science  has  led  to  the  discovery  of 
many  means  by  which  articles  may  be  manufactured 
more  cheaply  or  with  more  attractive  appearance,  than 
heretofore;  but  at  the  expense  of  the  health  of  the 
operatives,  although  the  evil  effects  of  their  occupation 
are  often  not  immediately  apparent. 

In  short,  no  one  can  pretend  that  the  condition  o£  the 
working  classes  in  our  great  cities  is  a  satisfactory  one. 
But  the  aggravation  of  this  condition  consists  in  its  being, 
as  a  rule,  permanent.  Our  city  is  full  of  rich  men,  who 
were  workingmen  in  their  youth,  and  yet  if  you  ask  them 
whether  they  could  begin  to-day  as  a  workingman  and 
repeat  their  success,  they  would  tell  you  that  it  could  not 
be  done.  No  one  has  set  forth  the  evils  suffered  by  work- 
ingmen and  the  present  hopelessness  of  the^r  fate,  more 
eloquently  than  Mr.  George,  and  in  my  opinion  his 
description  is  not  overdrawn  as  to  our  large  cities.  His 
explanation  is  false  and  his  remedy  is  vain,  as  I  have  tried, 
to  show.  Is  there  another  explanation  of  this  evil,  and  is 
there  another  remedy  ? 

I  know  that  Mr.  Mill  is  supposed  to  have  settled  this 
question  by  the  mysterious  theories  of  "  supply  and  de- 
mand," "  competition,"  etc.,  and  to  have  shown  that  the 
actual  condition  is  the  best  possible  and  that  legislation 
can  produce  no  real  improvement;  but  there  are  some 
considerations  which  this  pessimistic  school  does  not 
sufficiently  consider. 

In  my  opinion  anyone  who  makes  inquiries  among 
workingmen  and  employers  in  our  cities  will  find  tha 
Thornton  in  his  work  on  "  Labor,"  by  which  he  forced 
Mr.  Mill  to  confess  the  inadequacy  of  the  famed  wage- 
fund  theory,  is  correct  when  he  says  (p.  101):  "What 
really   does,   within    certain   impassable   limits    regulate 


205 

wages,  is  commonly,  when  the  employed  are  content  to 
remain  passive,  the  combination  of  the  employers  ;  and 
when  these  have  (as  they  in  practice  do  far  more  and 
far  oftener  than  they  get  credit  for)  fixed  upon  a  higher 
rate  than  they  need  have  done,  they  can,  of  course,  lower 
it  if  they  please.  .  .  .  Now,  among  keenly  competing 
•employers,  there  are  never  wanting  some  who  are  will- 
ing to  reduce  wages  so  much  as  possible.  .  .  .  But 
scarcely  more  true  is  it  of  Ireland,  or  of  India,  than  of 
England,  that  whatever  has,  at  any  time,  been  the  mini- 
mum of  subsistence — supposed  to  be  sufficient  to  enable 
laborers  to  go  on  living  as  they  had  been  accustomed  to 
live — that  some  minimum  has  been  the  measure  of  the 
price  of  labor.  Whenever  and  wherever  masters  have 
had  the  framing  of  the  scale  of  wages,  this  has  been  the 
basis  of  their  calculations  (p.  147).  .  .  .  Instead  of 
suffering  the  rate  of  wages  to  be  settled  naturally 
by  competition,  they  endeavor  by  combination  to 
settle  it  arbitrarily  (p.  80).  But  it  is  only  very 
rarely,  and  when  labor  is  at  once  very  scarce  and 
in  very  great  request,  that  masters  are  tempted  to 
compete  with  each  other.  At  all  other  times  they 
are  in  the  habit  of  combining,  instead  of  competing, 
and  it  is  their  combination  which  then  determines  the 
price  of  labor,  and  determines  it  arbitrarily.  .  .  .  Com- 
bined masters  really  possess — whether  they  choose  to 
exercise  or  not — almost  absolute  power  of  control  over 
the  wages  of  uncombined  workmen.  .  .  .  Thus  in  a 
normal  state  of  things,  .  .  .  the  price  of  labor  is  de- 
termined not  by  supply  and  demand,  which  never  deter- 
mined the  price  of  anything,  nor  yet  generally  by  com- 
petition, which  generally  determines  the  price  of  every- 
thing else,  but  by  combination  among  the  masters"  (pp. 
83-85).  Mr.  Mill,  in  his  reply  to  Mr.  Thornton,  in  the 
'  Fortnightly  Review,"  in  effect  admitted  the  justice  of 


2o6 

the  latter's  criticism,  to  the  considerable  dismay  of  his 
own  scholars.  He  says,  on  page  690 :  "  In  this  higgling, 
the  laborer  in  an  isolated  condition,  unable  to  hold  out 
even  against  a  single  employer — much  more  against  the 
tacit  combination  of  employers — will,  as  a  rule,  find  his 
wages  kept  down  at  the  lower  limit." 

Anyone  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  inquire  in  actual 
life,  or  to  consult  the  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor 
Statistics  for  1886,  will  find  that,  in  this  State  and  in  this 
time,  what  Adam  Smith  said  is  true :  "  Masters  are 
always  and  everywhere  in  a  sort  of  tacit  but  uniform 
combination  not  to  raise  wages  above  their  actual  rate.'' 

Furthermore,  it  appears  to  be  true  what  Cairnes  said, 
in  his  "  Leading  Principles  of  Political  Economy"  :  "  What 
we  find  in  effect  is  not  a  whole  population  competing 
indiscriminately  for  all  occupations,  but  a  series  of  indus- 
trial layers,  superposed  on  one  another,  within  each  of 
which  the  various  candidates  for  employment  possess  a 
real  and  effective  power  of  selection,  while  those  occupy- 
ing the  several  strata  are  for  all  purposes  of  effective 
competition  practically  isolated  from  one  another''  (p.  64). 

Sir  John  Lubbock,  in  a  recent  article  on  the  early 
closing  movement  in  "  Good  Words,"  said  :  "  Happily,  I 
may  say  this  is  no  question  between  shopkeepers  and  their 
assistants.  There  is  no  such  difference.  I  believe  the 
shopkeepers  are  almost  as  anxious  to  close  as  the  assist- 
ants themselves,  Perhaps,  then,  it  may  be  said,  why  not 
leave  the  matter  in  their  hands  ?  Because  in  almost  every 
case  the  arrangements  for  early  closing  have  been  ren- 
dered nugatory  by  the  action  of  some  very  small  minority 
among  the  shopkeepers.  Over  and  over  again  the  shop- 
keepers in  a  given  district  have  been  anxious  to  close,  and 
have  all  agreed  to  do  so  with,  perhaps,  a  single  exception. 
But  that  single  exception  is  fatal.     One  after  another  the 


207 

rest  gradually  open  again,  the  whole  thing  breaks  down 
and  thus  a  small  minority  tyrannize  over  the  rest."  4 

Bearing  in  mind  these  three  propositions,  namely,  that 
the  rate  of  wages  in  every  trade  is  mainly  determined  by 
an  open  or  secret  combination  of  the  employers,  and  that 
the  most  unscrupulous  employer  in  any  trade  can  force 
other  employers  to  be  equally  oppressive  to  their  em- 
ployees, under,  penalty  of  being  driven  out  of  the  busi- 
ness, and  that  workingmen  in  the  trades  requiring  any 
training  are  not  able  to  go  at  will  from  one  trade  to 
another — is  it  true  that  legislation  ought  and  can  do 
nothing  towards  permanently  improving  the  condition  of 
the  workingmen  ?  Firstly,  as  to  the  "  ought,"  the  answer 
of  Mr.  Mill  and  his  followers  is  plain.  Cairnes,  in  his  work 
above  cited,  says :  "  I  am  unaware  of  any  rule  of  justice 
applicable  to  the  problem  of  distributing  the  produce  of 
industry"  (p.  263).  Thornton  says  in  his  book  "  On 
Labor" :  '>  Either  side  is  clearly  at  liberty  to  put  forward 
whatever  claim  it  pleases.  The  only  question  is  whether 
it  is  strong  enough  to  enforce  its  claim"  (p.  301).  Professor 
Sumner  says  in  his  "  What  Social  Classes  Owe  One 
Another"  :  "  Society  does  not  need  any  care  or  supervision 
(p.  119).  .  .  .  There  is  no  injunction,  no  'ought'  in 
political  economy  at  all"  (p.  156). 

To  counterbalance  these  opinions  of  the  Manchester 
school,  I  would  refer  to  the  writings  of  the  modern  Ger- 
man political  economists,  who  constitute  the  so-called 
Professorial-Socialist  school.  Thus,  Schmoller  says  in 
his  "  Ueber  einige  Grundfragen"  (p.  150):  "Law  and 
humanity  must  not  be  banished  even  from  political  econ- 
omy ;"  and  on  page  90:  "A  great  part  of  this  injustice 
arises  because,  in  times  of  new  economical  development, 
morality  and  law  are  at  first  ineffectual  against  the  actual 
power  of  the  rich."  These  sentiments  are  re-echoed  by 
all  the  energetic  writers  of  this  school,  and  it  is  their 


208 

theories  which  are  being  followed  out  in  the  present  suc- 
cessful German  legislation  for  the  regeneration  of  the 
working  classes.  As  Rae  says  of  this  school,  in  his  "  Con- 
temporary Socialism"  (p.  202) :  "  They  said  it  was  vain 
for  the  Manchester  party  to  deny  that  a  social  question 
existed,  and  to  maintain  that  the  working  classes  were  as 
well  oS  as  it  was  practical  for  economical  arrangements 
to  make  them.  They  declared  there  was  much  truth  in 
the  charges  which  socialists  were  bringing  against  the 
existing  order  of  things,  and  that  there  was  a  decided 
call  upon  all  the  powers  of  society — and,  among  others, 
especially  upon  the  State — to  intervene  with  some  re- 
medial measures." 

Even  the  writers  of  the  Manchester  school — while  their 
official  programme  denies  the  propriety  of  any  inter- 
ference with  individuals  in  economical  matters — let  fall 
many  expressions  entirely  inconsistent  with  this  claim. 
Thus,  Mr.  Mill  says  in  the  article  in  the  "  Fortnightly 
Review,"  for  May,  1869,  above  cited:  "  Every  opinion  as 
to  the  relative  rights  of  laborers  and  employers  involves, 
expressly  or  tacitly,  some  theory  of  justice,  and  it  cannot 
be  indifferent  to  know  what  theory"  (p.  506).  The 
Report  of  the  English  Labor  Law  Commissioners,  in 
1867  (see  "  Davis'  Labor  Laws"),  contains  the  following 
passage :  "All  that,  as  it  appears  to  us,  the  law  has  to  do, 
over  and  above  any  protection  that  map  be  required  for 
classes  unable  to  protect  themselves,  such  as  women  and 
children,  is  to  secure  a  fair  field  for  the  unrestricted 
exercise  of  industrial  competition."  Finally,  even  Pro- 
fessor Sumner,  in  the  same  book  from  which  the  heartless 
principles  above  cited  were  taken,  says :  "  The  safety  of 
workmen  from  machinery,  the  ventilation  and  sanitary 
arrangements  required  by  factories,  the  special  precau- 
tions of  certain  processes,  the  hours  of  labor  of  women 
and  children,  the  limits  of  age  for  employed  children, 


209 

Sunday  work,  hours  of  labor — these,  and  other  like  mat- 
ters, ought  to  be  controlled  by  the  men  (workingmen) 
themselves,  through  their  organizations." 

Surely,  this  programme  of  practical  reforms  ought  to 
be  sufficient  for  the  present  to  satisfy  even  ardent  reform- 
ers ;  but  is  it  not  plainly  inconsistent  with  the  laissez-faire 
doctrines,  above  cited,  of  the  same  eminent  professor,  as 
well  as  with  the  teachings  concerning  personal  liberty  of 
the  founders  of  this  school?  The  late  Mr.  Jevons,  in  his 
work  entitled  "  The  State  in  Relation  to  Labor,"  con- 
fesses that  this  main  doctrine  of  the  Manchester  school  is 
a  failure  ;  he  says :  "  Evidently  there  must  be  cases  where 
it  is  incumbent  on  one  citizen  to  guard  against  the  danger 
to  other  citizens.  But  even  in  the  extreme  case  of  the 
adult  man,  experience  unquestionably  shows  that  men 
from  mere  thoughtlessness  or  ignorance  incur  grave  inju- 
ries to  health  or  limb  which  very  little  pressure  from  the 
Legislature  could  avert  with  benefit  to  all  parties  "  (p.  5). 
"  It  is  no  doubt  a  gross  interference  with  that  metaphysical 
entity,  the  liberty  of  the  subject,  to  prevent  a  man  from 
working  with  phosphorus  as  he  pleases ;  but  if  it  can  be 
shown  by  unquestionable  statistics  and  the  unimpeach- 
able evidence  of  scientific  men  that  such  working  with 
phosphorus  leads  to  a  dreadful  disease,  easily  preventable 
by  a  small  change  of  procedure,  then  I  hold  that  the 
Legislature  is,  prima  facie  justified  in  obliging  the  man  to 
make  this  small  change.  The  liberty  of  the  subject  is 
only  the  means  towards  an  end  "  (p.  12.)  And  this  emi- 
nent writer  finally  confesses :  "  The  question  may  well 
arise  indeed,  whether,  according  to  the  doctrine  here 
upheld,  there  is  really  any  place  at  all  for  rules  and  gen- 
eral propositions ''  (p.  17). 

This  confession  of  failure  appears  to  be  the  final  con- 
clusion to  which  the  Manchester  school  has  come ;  and 
yet  there  must  be  some  general  principles   by    which  all 


2IO 


these  particular  cases  are  to  be  governed  ;  there  must 
remain  a  science  of  legislation  on  economic  matters. 

The  fault  which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  has  led  to  the  decay 
of  the  Manchester  school,  is  its  indifference  to  the  exer- 
cise of  the  principles  of  justice  between  classes  or  groups 
of  men,  or  between  the  State  and  such  classes  or  groups. 
Thus,  Professor  Sumner  says,  on  p.  160  of  his  above  cited 
work:  "The  relations  of  sympathy  and  sentiment  are 
essentially  limited  to  two  persons  only,  and  they  cannot 
be  made  a  basis  for  the  relations  of  groups  of  persons,  or 
for  discussion  by  any  third  party."  But  if  it  is  my  duty  as 
an  individual  not  to  trample  on  but  to  show  compassion 
to  another  individual,  who  may  be  suffering,  is  it  not  also 
my  duty  to  show  compassion  and  not  to  trample  upon 
a  number  of  individuals  or  class  ?  And  is  it  not  equally  my 
duty  when  acting  not  individually,  but  with  a  number  of 
others  or  in  a  class,  to  show  the  same  spirit  and  not  to 
trample  upon  another  individual  or  class  ?  All  classes 
combined,  or  the  State,  owe  sympathy  to  an  individual, 
as  evidenced  by  public  charitable  institutions,  courts  of 
justice,  etc. ;  should  not  the  same  spirit  be  shown  to  a 
number  of  individuals,  or  to  class  ?  The  State  compels 
one  individual  to  show  sympathy  to  another ;  why  may 
it  not  insist  on  a  number  of  individuals  or  a  class  showing 
sympathy  to  an  individual,  or  to  a  number  of  individuals 
or  class  ?  Why  should  it  allow  one  class  to  destroy 
another  physically,  morally  and  spiritually,  when  it  does 
not  permit  one  individual  so  to  destroy  another  ?  Is  not 
the  former,  if  anything,  the  greater  wrong? 

The  position  of  the  Manchester  school  differs  in  no  way 
from  that  ot  the  first  man  who  said :  "  Am  I  my  brother's 
keeper  ?"  Christianity  in  making  the  love  of  neighbor, 
as  illustrated  by  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan,  its 
second  great  commandment,  says  that  we  are. 

As  I  have  tried  to  show  in  my  paper  on  Federalism,  the 


21  I 

root  of  law  is  in  this  God-given  feeling  of  sympathy,  and 
that  the  spirit  which  pervades  it  is  love. 

Sir  Matthew  Hale  said  :  "  Christianity  is  parcel  of  the 
law  of  England." 

If,  therefore,  we  admit  that  the  law  can  enforce  the 
exercise  of  sympathy  between  individuals,  it  must  also, 
in  my  opinion,  be  able  to  enforce  such  sympathy 
between  classes. 

The  great  change  which  is  now  occurring  in  this 
country,  as  it  is  being  filled  up,  is  the  formation  of 
classes  of  men  who  do  not,  as  formerly,  go  from  one 
occupation  to  another,  but  who  remain  for  life  in  the 
same  pursuit  of  a  living.  In  our  political  economy  we 
must  therefore  begin  with  the  injunction  in  the  song  of 
the  herald-angels :  "  Peace  on  earth,  good-will  amongst 
men ;"  or,  as  St.  Paul  expands  it  in  Epistle  to  the 
Colossians,  Ch.  III.,  v.  2  :  "  Where  there  is  neither  Greek 
nor  Jew,  circumcision,  nor  uncircumcision,  Barbarian, 
Scythian,  bond  nor  free  ;  but  Christ  is  all,  and  in  all." 

We  should  cast  off  the  name  of  Christians  if  we  believe 
that  in  our  business  life,  which  comprises,  probably,  the 
greater  part  of  our  energies,  mutual  consideration  and 
justice  are  to  have  no  place. 

Or,  on  merely  patriotic  grounds,  if  we  assume 
that  a  State  is  a  being  created  to  develop  par- 
ticularly certain  faculties,  or  realize  certain  ideals, 
must  we  not  be  willing  to  limit  our  absolute  liberty,  in 
order  to  realize  these  ideals  ?  How  could  society  other- 
wise have  been  formed?  In  the  words  of  Cobbett: 
"  There  never  yet  was,  and  never  will  be,  a  nation  perma- 
nently great,  consisting  for  greater  part  of  wretched  and 
miserable  families." 

Moreover,  the  effect  upon  ourselves  of  consenting  to, 
or  assisting  in  causing  the  debasement — physical,  intel- 
lectual or  moral — of  our  fellow-creatures,  must  react 
upon  and  lower  our  own  moral  qualities. 


212 


Anyone,  therefore,  will  probably  easily  admit  that  if  it 
be  possible  this  justice  should  enter  into  our  relations 
with  our  fellow-beings  in  business  life.  The  very  numer- 
ous laws  contained  in  the  statute  books  of  this  State,  espe- 
cially in  the  sanitary  code,  show  that  in  fact  we  do  recog- 
nize this  principle  in  isolated  cases.  It  is  part  of  the 
police  power  of  the  State,  which,  as  defined  by  our  Court 
of  Appeals  (98  New  York,  98),  "  is  very  broad  and  com- 
prehensive, and  is  exercised  to  promote  the  health,  com- 
fort, safety  and  welfare  of  society." 

As  to  the  theoretical  desirability  of  the  admission 
of  these  higher  principles  of  justice  into  business  life, 
there  can  probably  be  little  doubt ;  the  only  question  is 
how  that  can  be  rendered  possible  in  the  present  state  of 
society  ? 

In  my  opinion,  our  views  of  what  is  just  already  play  a 
much  larger  part  in  business  life  than  is  generally  ac- 
knowledged by  writers  on  political  economy.  Are  not 
the  wages  of  the  most  unskilled  laboring  men  fixed  by  the 
amount  of  physical  comforts  which  their  employers  think 
it  necessary  to  allow  them,  over  and  above  the  means 
necessary  for  the  bare  support  of  life  ?  And  from  these 
wages  required  to  realize  the  lowest  ideals  of  life,  do  not 
wages  grade  upwards  in  various  stages  as  the  skill  or 
strength  required  in  the  work  increases  ?  So  that  finally 
the  rate  of  wages  is  determined  by  the  ideas  of  justice  in 
regard  to  compensation  for  the  rudest  forms  of  labor 
among  the  employers ;  and  we  have  seen  what  an  influ- 
ence the  most  selfish  of  a  class  of  employers  have  in 
reducing  wages. 

Sir  John  Lubbock  says  in  the  above  cited  article  on 
the  early  closing  movement :  "  It  seems  clear  that  nothing 
but  legislation  can  remedy  the  evil.  Voluntary  action 
has  been  tried  and  failed  over  and  over  again,  and  the 
almost  unanimous  opinion   of    the   witnesses    examined 


213 

before  the  House  of  Commons  committee  was  that  it  was 
hopeless  to  expect  any  shortening  of  the  hours  in  that 
way.  Such,  then,  is  the  present"  position  of  affairs,  and, 
as  I  have  said,  tbe  general  feeling  of  the  shopkeeping 
community  is  in  favor  of  legislation.  Even  as  long  ago 
as  1873  the  shopkeepers  who  came  to  me  with  reference 
to  the  bill  I  then  proposed  expressed  themselves  in 
favor  of  a  general  compulsory  closing,  I  then  thought 
this  was  impossible.  Only  by  degrees  have  I  become 
convinced  how  deep  and  general  this  feeling  is." 

The  State  can  certainly  regulate  many  evils  if  it 
will.  It  does  regulate  them  to  a  certain  extent ;  if  the 
programme  of  Professor  Sumner  as  to  factory  laws,  hours 
of  labor,  etc.,  were  carried  out,  we  would  probably  be 
going  as  far  as  the  circumstances  at  present  require.  The 
chief  thing  necessary  at  this  time  appears  to  me  to  be  to 
recognize  that  these  so-called  interferences  with  the  lib- 
erty of  contract  are  justified  in  theory,  and  are  not  merely 
to  be  considered  by  the  richer  classes  as  victories  wrung 
from  them  by  ignorant  masses  acting  against  their  own 
interests.  All  classes  should  take  a  lively  interest  in  the 
adjustment  ol  these  questions,  in  the  belief  that  their 
correct  solution  will  afford  a  great  and  permanent  good 
to  all. 

We  should  recognize  once  for  all  the  general  principle 
that  no  manufacture  shall  be  carried  on  which,  as  a  rule, 
produces  sickness  or  prematurely  shortens  the  lives  of  the 
individuals  employed  therein  ;  that  no  dwellings  or  work- 
shops shall  exist  which  do  not  possess  the  sanitary  condi- 
tions necessary  to  preserve  the  ordinary  health  of  the 
inmates.  The  effect  of  carrying  this  principle  into  prac- 
tice would  be  of  course  to  stop  every  kind  of  business  in 
which  the  employer  could  not  or  would  not  furnish  the 
employees  salubrious  working-rooms  and  pay  them  suffi- 
cient to  support  themselves  in  a  healthy  and  decent  man- 


214 

ner,  in  return  for  only  so  many  hours  oi  labor  as  would 
not  overtax  their  strength,  but  allow  them  a  fair,  physical,, 
mental  and  moral  development. 

According  to  the  Massachusetts  statistics  of  Labor  Re- 
port of  1880:  "The  advancement  of  the  workingman  in 
an  economic  way,  along  with  the  best  intellectual  and 
moral  training,  is  the  only  sure  method  to  improve  his. 
social  education,  opportunities  and  life  "  (p.  244). 

As  John  Stuart  Mill  said  :  "  Education  is  not  compati- 
ble with  extreme  poverty.  It  is  impossible  effectually  to 
teach  an  indigent  population "  (p.  202  of  "  Political 
Economy  "). 

Before  proceeding,  however,  to  enumerate  the  bless- 
ings which  we  all  will  acknowledge  might  flow  from 
such  an  improvement  in  the  condition  of  workingmen,  let 
us  examine  the  great  objections  which  of  course  suggest 
themselves  to  any  one.  The  first  is,  that  such  an  exten- 
sion of  the  sanitary  laws,  tenement-house  inspection,  etc.,. 
means  the  stopping  of  many  business  establishments 
which  can  earn  only  sufficient  profits  to  pay  their  em- 
ployees their  present  low  wages.  The  natural  conse- 
quence would  be  that  these  employees  would  be  thrown 
out  of  work,  and  that  the  supply  of  the  articles  which  they 
manufactured  would  decrease  and  the  price  thereof  in- 
crease. 

Depriving  these  people  of  their  wages  would  doubtless 
be  an  evil,  but  is  it  a  greater  evil  than  allowing  them  to 
work  on  at  their  present  occupations,  ruin  their  health 
and  become  a  burden  on  society  ?  If  there  is  not  work 
enough  for  them  in  this  locality,  at  wages  which  secure 
them  a  decent  living,  there  is  work  in  other  places ;  or 
even  if  emigration  were  impossible,  it  is  very  certain  that 
it  would  be  a  cheap  price  for  society  to  pay  to  support 
even  a  large  number  of  individuals  of  this  generation  at 
work  on  public  undertakings,  rather  than  to  allow  them 


215 

to  become  each  the  fountain  head  of  new  misery  and 
crime,  which  always  springs  from  degraded  humanity. 
The  first  English  factory  act  was  passed  after  an  epidemic 
had  started  from  the  overcrowding  of  children  in  fac- 
tories. 

Of  course,  the  enforcement  of  these  sanitary  laws  would 
prevent  the  subsequent  establishment  of  such  poorly  pay- 
ing kinds  of  business,  so  that  the  burden  above  referred 
to  would  at  most  have  to  be  borne  only  once  for  all. 
The  saying  is  well  known,  "  Abject  poverty  is  the  mother 
of  crime."  There  is  a  sum  in  dollars  and  cents,  and,  if 
wages  are  below  that,  men  are  driven  to  crime  and 
women  to  shame.  Crime  is  increasing  at  an  alarming  ratio. 
According  to  Mr.  Round,  Secretary  of  the  Prison  Asso- 
ciation of  New  York,  in  this  city  in  1850  the  pro- 
portion of  criminals  to  the  number  of  inhabitants  was  1 
in  3,000;  in  1870,  it  was  1  in  1,021;  in  1881,  it  was  1  in 
837.  According  to  the  same  authority,  $480,000,000  are 
annually  paid  to  protect  society  from  criminals.  This 
item  of  the  expense  to  society  to  protect  itself  against  its 
internal  foes  is  increasing  too  rapidly  to  be  borne.  As  a 
business  matter,  in  order  to  save  money,  working  men 
and  women  must  be  put  in  better  circumstances.  The 
same  can  be  said  of  intemperance,  the  root  of  which  lies 
in  overwork  and  underpay  ;  alcohol  is  the  cheapest  food 
for  giving  temporary  strength. 

Next,  let  us  consider  the  objection  that  the  stopping 
of  these  factories  would  raise  the  price  of  the  commodi- 
ties which  they  heretofore  produced.  These  commodi- 
ties would  be  either  articles  of  luxury  or  of  necessity. 
If  they  were  articles  of  luxury,  the  loss  would  fall  upon 
the  rich,  and,  in  my  opinion,  anyone  who  contemplates 
the  increase  in  luxury,  during  the  last  fifty  years,  will 
conclude  that  a  certain  decrease  in  that  direction  can  well 
be  borne.     If,  however,  the  manufactures  were  articles  of 


2l6 

necessity  it  is  true  that  their  price  would  rise,  and  that 
this  would  bear  hard  particularly  on  the  poor.  But,  if 
the  price  of  living  of  all  workingmen  were  raised,  while 
the  sanitary  and  other  laws  continued  to  be  enforced,  the 
wages  of  workingmen  would  have  to  be  raised  in  propor- 
tion. So  that  the  loss  would  again  fall  upon  the  wealthy 
classes,  and  would  lead  them  to  diminish  their  expendi- 
tures for  luxury,  which,  as  above  observed,  they  can,  in 
my  opinion,  well  afford  to  do,  and,  perhaps,  most  of  all, 
to  their  own  profit.  Moreover,  self-interest  directs  the 
community,  merely  for  the  sake  of  decreasing  the  price 
of  an  article  to  a  class  of  consumers,  not  to  allow  em- 
ployers to  reduce  the  wages  of  their  employees,  or  to 
force  them  to  work  under  such  unfavorable  circum- 
stances as  to  unfit  them  for  profitable  labor  at  an  -early 
age,  and  thus  compel  society  to  support  them  and  their 
families. 

Of  the  advantages  which  would  compensate  all  classes 
for  this  sacrifice  in  artificial  luxuries,  it  is  needles  to  speak 
in  detail;  in  the  words  of  Ruskin,  we  would  have  instead 
of  "  cities  in  which  the  object  of  man  is  not  life  but  labor ; 
cities  in  which  the  streets  are  not  the  avenues  for  the  pass- 
ing processions  of  a  happy  people,  but  the  drains  for  the 
discharge  of  a  tormented  mob,"  cities  "  whose  walls  shall 
be  safety,  and  whose  gates  shall  be  praise." 

Finally,  however,  it  will  occur  to  many,  that  we  have  in 
late  years  in  this  country  and  abroad  passed  many  laws 
for  the  inspection  of  tenement  houses,  factories,  etc.,  and 
yet  there  has  been  no  corresponding  improvement  in  the 
condition  of  the  workingmen,  if  there  has  been  any  ;  that 
many  of  these  laws  remain  dead  letters  or  are  used  by 
corrupt  officials  as  the  means  of  private  emolument ;  and 
that  consequently  we  have  little  reason  to  suppose  that 
the  mere  extension  of  this  principle  will  produce  any  real 
benefit  to  the  workingmen  or  to  society  at  large.      In  an- 


217 

swer  to  this  argument,  I  would  refer  to  my  former  paper 
on  "  Trade  Organizations  in  Public  Affairs  or  Federalism 
in  Cities,"  in  which  I  have  endeavored  to  show  that  the 
great  cause  of  the  mal-administration  of  our  municipal 
affairs  is  our  adherence  to  the  antiquated  and  false  sys- 
tem of  electing  our  city  fathers,  legislators  and  judges  of 
inferior  courts  from  artificial  geographical  districts,  in 
which  the  gin-shop  influence  is  certain  to  be  paramount, 
instead  of  from  the  city  at  large,  where  the  men  of  all 
classes  might  select  those  who  are  to  make  and  to  enforce 
their  laws  according  to  their  untrammeled  wishes.  So 
long  as  this  system  of  artificial  divisions  of  cities  remains, 
with  its  corrupt  ramifications,  so  long  will  any  extension 
of  the  powers  of  government,  even  in  the  interest  of  hu- 
manity and  justice,  be  failures.  Consider  for  a  moment 
the  character  of  the  man  who  now  occupies  the  position 
of  head  of  our  Board  of  Health ;  would  not  those  laws 
be  differently  enforced  if  the  organizations  of  employees, 
for  whose  protection  they  are  intended,  had  some  direct 
influence  in  selecting  this  official  ?  Governor  Seymour 
well  defined  self-government  (as  cited  in  my  paper  above 
referred  to)  as  attempting  "  to  distribute  each  particular 
power  to  those  who  have  the  greatest  interest  in  its  wise 
and  faithful  exercise."  Any  excessive  demands  of  the 
workingmen  would  certainly  be  met  if  these  demands 
were  publicly  discussed  by  the  arguments  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  employers  and  of  all  other  interests  in 
the  city  or  State,  and  would  yield  before  the  moral  weight 
of  this  united  opinion ;  especially  as  the  various  classes 
of  workingmen  learned  that  they  themselves  were  con- 
sumers as  well  as  producers ;  and  that  an  increase  in  the 
wages  of  one  class  meant  an  increase  in  the  price  of  the 
article  which  that  class  produced. 

No  matter  how  far  this  principle  of  justice  were  car- 
ried into  economical  matters,  it  would  never  produce 


218 

^equality  of  property.  The  past  is  not  to  be  obliterated ; 
different  types  of  men  possess  different  degrees  of  force 
and  intelligence  ;  the  rise  and  fall  of  individuals  and  races 
must  continue ;  but  we  can  at  least  by  this  plan  do  much 
to  secure  to  all  within  our  city  and  State  and  ultimately 
within  our  nation,  a  much  happier  and  safer  life  than  they 
lead  at  present,  and  as  I  believe,  one  that  will  make  all 
our  citizens  once  more  contented  and  patriotic.  Human 
hands  may  never  build  Jerusalem  the  Golden,  but  we  Can 
give  all  our  fellow-citizens  opportunity  to  live  a  healthy, 
moral  life  here  and  to  preDare  themselves  for  a  life  in  the 
world  to  come. 


^ 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUEONTFTTAon, 

STAM^DBE^^81  DATE 

TH.S  BOOK  ON  THE  F00ARTEFAD'^RE  T°  RCTURN 
WILL.  INCREASE  TO  50  CEN?.  o  JHE  PENAI"TY 
DAY  AND  TO  $[  00  om  J  °N  ™E  FO"*TH 
OVERDUE.  °N    ™E    SEVENTH     DAY 


